Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Local Food Production

Bob Russell: What assistance he is giving for the promotion of local food production.

Joan Ruddock: DEFRA launched a regional food strategy in December 2002. Since then we have helped to encourage a flourishing quality regional and local food sector and given £20 million of support.

Bob Russell: I thank the Under-Secretary for her reply and welcome her to her post. Britain should be growing more of its own food and importing less. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for supermarkets to describe as "local" food that may have been grown hundreds of miles away and transported through central processing and packaging points?

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his kind words. I am disappointed that he has not raised the Colchester native oyster application, as he has done so often and on which I understand DEFRA is waiting for more information before sending to the EU.
	Of course it is essential that labelling is accurate and that consumers are well informed about the produce that they purchase. However, there needs to be a life cycle analysis to determine which food is more or less environmentally friendly in its growing, production, packaging and dispatch. Food that comes from a distance does not always have more environmental impact than food grown locally with very high inputs. It is a complicated science. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point and we need to make sure that consumers are aware and can make appropriate choices.

David Drew: I welcome my hon. Friend to her post; it is well deserved and I am sure that we look forward to working with each other for many years.
	Community agriculture is beginning to grow in various parts of the country, Stroud being a wonderful example. It involves people taking food production into their own hands, which it is necessary to support. One way in which that can be done is by making sure that community agriculture links in with the county farm estates, of which I have been a supporter for many years. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that and ensure that we get local food for local people that is grown by local people.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and pay tribute to his interest in the environment, particularly local food and its quality. Food from Britain is a programme that has the support of DEFRA in which we are endeavouring to give assistance to farmers to improve their production, quality, labelling and marketing. This is very important to us and the Department will continue to give appropriate support to the food industry, including farmers.

Michael Jack: From her time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Under-Secretary will recall the importance of the rural development programme. Is she aware that her Department is spending some £260 million on consultants but only £300 million of its own money to top up the rural development programme? In her new role, will she look at reducing expenditure on consultants and spending more on the rural development programme for the benefit of local food producers?

Joan Ruddock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and for his reference to my record. Consultants are an easy target for suggesting that they are not worth their money. I would judge each case on its own merits, and would want to know what the consultants were engaged to do and whether they helped the people they were advising to achieve their objectives. That is the way in which these judgments have to be made, but I am very happy to look at his specific points.

James Paice: May I formally welcome the Under-Secretary to what I think is her first paid Front-Bench position? I recall that she was one of the unpaid Ministers earlier in the Government's lifetime. I congratulate her on her appointment.
	The hon. Lady rightly mentioned food labelling in answer to the first question. Has she had time to realise just what a shambles we have in our food labelling legislation? It is very confusing. Why do we have a system where some food is required to be labelled with its country of origin but not others: beef, but not pork or lamb; chicken from Brazil, but not from Belgium; honey, but not jam; olive oil, but not sunflower oil? We have complete confusion about our labelling legislation. If she really wants to promote local food—I believe from her record that she does—will she get a grip of our labelling rules and change them as soon as possible?

Joan Ruddock: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I agree that we need more transparency and clarity. The purpose of labelling is to put the consumer in the driving seat so that they can make appropriate choices and, where appropriate, put pressure on producers and suppliers. Like him, I am keen for there to be improvements; I take the matter he raises seriously, and I and my colleagues will do all we can to enhance the regime.

Anthony Steen: Does the Minister agree that increasing oil prices will push up the cost of buying produce from abroad? The Totnes pound, with which she might be familiar, offers a 5 per cent. discount on locally produced goods, and 70 local producers are offering it. Does not that initiative provide a good way of proceeding? There will be a stick and a local carrot; the stick will be rising oil prices and the local carrot will be an inducement to people to buy local goods. Is the Minister familiar with the Transition Town Totnes project?

Joan Ruddock: I think that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not yet being familiar with that project, but I intend to become familiar with it very soon. Consumers want to know where their food comes from, how it was grown and the circumstances of the people who produce it. It is good for both business and consumers if more local produce is made available, if it is appropriately described, and if, as is the case where there are markets, people can meet the producers. If the product is right, it is good for our health, too.

Sea Defences (East Coast)

John Whittingdale: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of sea defences on the east coast; and if he will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: The level of protection provided by sea defences along the east coast of England varies, depending on the level of risk and the type of land use which would be affected by any flooding. However, the indicative standard of protection for urban areas against sea flooding, as set out in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance, is typically to protect against a once in 200 years-type event. It is for the Environment Agency and other operating authorities to assess the risk and fully consider improvements to defences.

John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that the Environment Agency map shows some 2,600 properties around Maldon alone to be at risk from flooding, not to mention the Secretary of State's ancestral home? Does the Minister agree that the risk he describes is increasing, owing to rising sea levels, greater storm pressure and a subsiding land mass? Does he accept that much more money needs to be spent on sea defences and that if money is spent now the sums needed are likely to be far less than the catastrophic losses that would be incurred if a flood were to occur?

Phil Woolas: It is of course recognised that there is a growing risk and threat, which is why the Government have provided extra resources for defences—I know that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have done so. One cannot provide against all eventualities, but extra resources have been provided for his region and the area he represents.

Anthony D Wright: I welcome the Minister's comments and the fact that the Government have substantially increased the amount of money invested in coastal and flood defences. However, will the Minister consider providing compensation for home owners and businesses who might lose their properties as they are in areas where there will be a managed retreat because it is no longer affordable to defend the coastline?

Phil Woolas: It is no coincidence that such questions have been raised by Members of both main parties representing constituencies in the eastern region. The Government are fully aware of the risks and the future decisions that will have to be taken. My hon. Friend's request will certainly be considered, but he would not expect me to give any pledges today.

John Redwood: Will the new ministerial team urgently look at the need to strengthen or replace the Thames barrier at some point in the next decade, as current predictions are that its design-life probably will not extend beyond 2020 at the latest? Given the pressures from flooding risks and the Government's worries about global warming, is there not an urgent need to manage the consequences of such developments, and could we not link a new barrier to reclaiming land from the estuary so that we create valuable land for building?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the defences, and that is being considered. All those issues are a question of balance. Judgments have to be made on the types of defences and where they should be. We should not confuse—I know that he is not doing so—the need to protect against floods and the various causes of floods and coastal erosion, which has already been mentioned as it affects the eastern region.

Christopher Huhne: After the events in Sheffield, Doncaster and Hull, the last of which was well protected against coastal flooding but not against surface water flooding, do the Government still agree with their response to the autumn 2004 "Making Space for Water" consultation, which said that
	"to facilitate an holistic approach that is risk-driven, the Government will work towards giving the Environment Agency an overarching strategic overview across all flooding and coastal erosion risks"?
	That was meant to happen by the end of 2006, according to the timeline at the back of the Government's response. Will Ministers now tell the devastated householders of Hull, Sheffield and Doncaster when the Government will deliver on their promised flooding overview?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the strategy set out in "Making Space for Water". I have to point out to the House that the floods, especially in the east Yorkshire and Hull area, were exceptional and would not have been prevented by an implementation of the policy that he raises. Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that that is the Government's policy. Decisions and announcements in that area will be made by the Environment Agency, which is today publishing its consultation document on the specific aspects of the issue, and by the Government later in the year.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Will he join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in commiserating with the people of Filey, who suffered overnight from unprecedented rainfall, which led to major evacuations? The effect of the rainfall was compounded by recent development and inadequate drainage, but the clear message is that more has to be spent on flood defences. Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humber region flood defence committee has written to him, calling his attention to the fact that flood spending in the region will fall next year from £15.2 million to only £11.7 million? That is not the right message to send to people who have lost their homes and possessions in those unprecedented floods.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I know that she has great expertise on these issues, not least because of her constituency experience in Vale of York. I am, of course, aware of the events in Filey, which were similar in cause to those at Boscastle a few years ago. Anyone who knows Filey will be shocked to learn of the floods there.
	On the resources that have been made available, we have to caution against taking too specific a view, because we have to consider the trend which in flood defence spending has been one of significant increases over the years. The time scales for all capital projects, and especially flood defence spending, mean that the wrong impression can be given by taking a figure out of context. However, I will of course reply to the chairman in full detail.

Renewable Energy

Ian Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Energy on the development of renewable energy.

Phil Woolas: Support for renewable energy is an essential part of the Government's climate change programme and energy policy. I will continue to work closely with my ministerial colleagues to increase the share of UK electricity generated from renewables.

Ian Lucas: In Germany, 12 per cent. of energy is produced from renewable sources. Will my hon. Friend look closely at the success of the renewable energy Act in Germany and its proposals for revenue support, and will he discuss with the Energy Minister whether a similar system could be adopted in the UK, so that we can use the big house-building programme to advance renewable energy in this country?

Phil Woolas: The answers to the questions are yes and yes. My hon. Friend has a strong record of campaigning on this matter, and his constituency shows the economic as well as environmental benefits that renewables can bring. On 9 March, the Council of Europe agreed a binding target of having 20 per cent. of the EU's overall energy consumption coming from renewables by 2020. We are working towards that, but a step change is coming, not least because of the new homes being built and the campaigning work being done by my hon. Friend and others.

Richard Bacon: Does the Minister agree that wind turbines are such a good idea that we should have hundreds, not to say thousands, of them offshore? That would allow us to take advantage of the higher wind velocity of some of the world's stormiest seas, achieve greater economies of scale and implement our leading-edge offshore technology. On top of that, we would not have to look at them, which would be preferable to spending large amounts of taxpayers' money on subsidising the despoiling of south Norfolk's gentle landscape with industrial wind turbines, each of which is taller than Norwich cathedral.

Phil Woolas: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it would be wrong of me to give blanket approval for all such schemes, given the arguments from the shipping industry and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. On the whole, however, he makes a convincing case: our nation is blessed with offshore wind resources, and it would be wrong not to take advantage of them. Indeed, the Government's energy and environment policy is pushing in the direction that he outlines.

Colin Challen: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to what may be one of the most important positions in the Government? Has he had a chance to read the "Draft Options Paper on Renewable Targets" that has been circulated to Ministers? It deals with the 20 per cent. renewables target for the EU agreed at the spring Council, and speaks rather approvingly of what it describes as "scenario 1". However, by 2020 that would result in the UK delivering only 9 per cent. of renewable energy across all sectors, at a cost of £4 billion. That is less than half of the 20 per cent. by 2020 that the 2006 White Paper suggested was the Government's aspiration, and less than half of the EU target for that date. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Energy Minister at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and put some backbone into what used to be known as the Department of Trade and Industry?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He said that mine was one of the most important jobs, but another word for it would be "challenging". I represent Oldham, where rainfall is significant, so I am clearly in a lose-lose situation in that regard, but I will look at the points that my hon. Friend makes. The "Draft Options Paper On Renewable Targets" is an important document: the two Departments responsible for energy and the environment work very closely together on Government policy, and it is important that we speak with one voice.

David Curry: Given the impact on food prices of the diversion of production to ethanol, and the damage to the environment that the expansion of crops for ethanol can have in the developing world, will the Government consider drawing up a balance sheet of the pluses and minuses of biofuels? That will enable us to know clearly whether they will save the planet or damage it and cause undue suffering to its poorest inhabitants.

Phil Woolas: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman speaks with common sense. What he suggests seems very sensible, so I think we should do it. All such decisions are a question of balancing the pros and cons, so the idea of balance sheet will be given consideration. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made a similar point about food: such matters are not always as straightforward as they appear. We will do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Elliot Morley: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. On the question of encouraging microgeneration in renewables, does he agree that it does not make sense that those who can export electricity to the grid are paid less per unit than they spend when they buy electricity? That needs to be looked at. Also, the importance of energy and the environment has been mentioned already, so does he agree that there is a real logic in having those two crucial sectors covered by one Ministry?

Phil Woolas: The machinery of government is a matter for the Prime Minister, and I am not going there. Having said that, I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend says. The whole House acknowledges the depth of his experience, so his suggestions—particularly when they are made with the force of logic that he has just displayed—will be looked at. Clearly, microgeneration has a huge part to play and, in the next five to 10 years, we as a country will see a revolution in how we approach it. Getting the market right is an essential prerequisite for that revolution.

Elfyn Llwyd: Following on from the previous question, my constituency is well placed for microgeneration in both hydroelectric and wind power. One of the problems that potential microgenerators face is that the local electricity transmission company, Scottish Power, is less than enthusiastic about assisting them. There is one particular scheme on which I would like the Minister's advice at some point, if I cannot get the company to see reason. All the money has been spent, the scheme has been put together, but the company has turned round and said, "The grid here won't take that amount of power." That is absolutely nonsensical. It cuts across everything the Government are trying to do and goes against common sense. If I cannot get the company to see reason, will the Minister look at the problem if I send him the papers?

Phil Woolas: Yes, of course I will be happy to help if I can. We have a huge, £750 million programme involving the energy supply companies to encourage the diversification that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, so I will certainly look at the matter.

Madeleine Moon: The Government have proposed building a barrage across the River Severn to harness the second largest tidal range in the world. In welcoming my hon. Friend to his post and recognising the importance of tackling climate change and finding alternative sources of energy, may I also ask him to bear in mind the fact that the Severn is one of the most important sites in the UK for its mudflats, sandbanks and reefs and that environmental protection is also a major issue for the Government?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend puts her finger on exactly the sorts of dilemmas and paradoxes that have been raised in previous questions. For the record, the Government are not proposing the barrier at the moment; we are looking at the matter and expect a report shortly. It is a question of balance. The protection of the environment at the expense of damaging the environment is one of the most difficult choices that we face in politics, which is why we must give the decision proper consideration.

Gregory Barker: May I warmly welcome the new team to their positions? We can all agree that the UK has huge untapped potential for renewable energy, but, sadly, as some Members have already commented, the renewables obligation, for all the billions that it has taken from consumers in recent years, has failed to deliver large-scale investment in a host of new technologies, such as wave and tidal power. At the other end of the spectrum, the low-carbon buildings programme to support micro-renewables is a complete shambles. However, the new energy efficiency commitment—EEC—that will replace the low-carbon buildings programme is set to be even more problematic. Can the Minister name a single innovative renewable technology that will be better supported under EEC3?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words in welcoming the new team. We reciprocate and welcome his new team. It is uncharitable of him to describe the scheme in the way that he has. There are many examples of improvements in the area of the low-carbon buildings programme—I have a document giving examples that runs to three pages. I do not propose to read them out, Mr. Speaker, because you would not let me, but I am more than happy to put the document on the website for hon. Members who are interested in reading in it.

Climate Change (Food Security)

Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had on the impact of climate change on food security.

Joan Ruddock: In 2006, DEFRA published a study on food security that concluded that the UK, as a rich and open economy, has a very robust and diverse food supply. However, the study also recognised the need to manage the various risks, including climate change, that are associated with modern food chains, as well as the food security challenges facing developing countries.

Tony Lloyd: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. Corn prices have started to rise because land is being used for biofuels, although that might be a welcome development. However, climate change could lead not only to an increase in food prices, but to a reduction in the world's food stocks. In that context, is she satisfied that the models on which DEFRA is working are robust enough to allow us to cope with whatever climate change produces globally?

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Nothing is absolutely certain when it comes to climate change, although we believe that our models are robust enough. Global self-sufficiency should not be taken for granted. We will continue to monitor trends, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's analysis of trends on global food production and demand. Climate change is certainly making patterns of world food production more volatile. In those circumstances, international trade can help us to pool risks and enhance food security.
	I remind my hon. Friend that the UK sources food from 34 countries, with no more than 13 per cent. of imports coming from any one of them, so our risk is carefully balanced. He would be right in thinking that the risks are at their most acute in developing countries. I am delighted that DEFRA is working in both India and China to try to increase the capacity to mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change on agriculture.

Roger Williams: It is estimated that 600,000 people in the world today are either underfed or undernourished. By 2050, there will be another 3 billion people—a 50 per cent. increase in the world's population. Given that the stocks of wheat and other food commodities are low, certainly compared with those in recent years, will the new Minister undertake to examine DEFRA's approach to food security and to ensure that UK farmers play their full part in feeding not only this nation, but the world? A hungry nation is not a happy nation.

Joan Ruddock: Indeed. We have to make a distinction between this country's food security and global food security. Given what I said in answer to the previous question, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are pretty confident about the position here because of the diversity of sources from which we draw our food supplies and our very effective international trade. Europe as a whole is 90 per cent. self-sufficient in food. However, he is right to point out the plight of people in developing countries. The Government's record, through the Department for International Development, is second to none in giving support to developing countries, especially on agriculture, water and other ways in which we can help them to secure their future food supplies. He will know that the provision of food and the periods of hunger in developing countries are not always directly linked to food production—poverty is an enormous factor. It is for other Ministers to discuss the complexities of the situation, but we must play our part, as I believe DEFRA is doing.

Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to see that my hon. Friend, an environmental campaigner, is now an Environment Minister. Does she agree that, whether we are considering food security or the G8 and World Bank meeting today and tomorrow in Paris on deforestation, there is a feeling that although climate change is very important, the response is fragmented? There is no cohesive and focused response globally, internationally, or even in this country. Will she work with her colleagues in her new job to ensure that we have an overarching and focused response to climate change?

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Through the Climate Change Bill, which the Government expect to introduce in the autumn, we will attempt to take a comprehensive approach for the first time, at least in this country. It will concentrate primarily on mitigation, but of course we will also consider adaptation. This country has played a leading role in the international community, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that many people have still not grasped the absolute urgency of the issue and the fact that it is global, that we are all in this together, that the blame game does not work, and that we have to work internationally. We must put our own house in order; otherwise, we cannot possibly expect to get the international agreements that we seek.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister accept that it is an ill-conceived policy to subsidise the production of biofuels, as that forces up the price of agricultural land and so forces up the cost of food at home? That requires us to import more food from overseas. Is it not a ludicrous policy, and is it not based on a failure to understand that climate change is essentially a natural phenomenon?

Joan Ruddock: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman completely ruined his case with his final remark. He must know that the vast majority of the world scientific community is now united in believing that the effects of climate change are primarily man-made. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has said repeatedly, it is a question of balance: we need biofuels until we can, for example, move to a new generation of vehicles that allow us to bypass the use of fossil fuels. There is a need for biofuels, and we will have to act in a sustainable way. Under the renewable transport fuel obligation, we will require obligated companies to report publicly on the life-cycle carbon savings and wider sustainability impacts of their biofuels, taking into account biodiversity and previous land use. In this country, we will ensure that we take account of all the effects of biofuels. Of course, many biofuels, such as those derived from forestry, are not alternatives to food crops. The issue is complex and it is a matter of balance, but we do need both biofuels and food crops.

Peter Ainsworth: I sincerely welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. We look forward to her future ministerial pronouncements on issues such as genetically modified food and nuclear power, on which she has a track record of robust opinion. I detect that her heart was not entirely in the line on food security that she read out at the beginning of her answer to the question. In 2003, her Department issued a statement that said:
	"National food security is neither necessary nor is it desirable".
	In 2005, the joint DEFRA-Treasury document "A Vision for the CAP" stated:
	"domestic production is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for food security",
	implying that if we run out of British-produced food, we can simply import it from abroad. A couple of months ago, the former Secretary of State reiterated that position, but in the light of the fact that around the world deserts are growing, droughts are increasing, food crops are being replaced by fuel crops, and the global population is rising sharply, does she not think it is time to have another look at whether Departments should be so casual about our ability to feed ourselves?

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; they were a bit mixed, but I can handle that. He spoke about food security, but food security is about ensuring that consumers have access to a stable and adequate supply of food. The issue of where that food comes from is not necessarily the key to food security. I accept entirely what he says about risks; as I said in previous answers, we are conscious of risks, and we must always be conscious of them. We are evaluating risks, and we remain in touch with the Food and Agriculture Organisation, but the point on UK food production is that self-sufficiency is best seen as a broad indicator of UK agricultural competitiveness, which he knows is actually extremely good. In criticising the Department, the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong foot. Food security is about ensuring that consumers have a supply. We are confident that that is the case, as I explained in my previous answers.

Supermarkets

Keith Vaz: What recent discussions he has had with supermarkets on the prices of foodstuffs provided by suppliers.

Jonathan R Shaw: Ministers have held a number of meetings with supermarkets, but not specifically on prices paid to suppliers. Supermarkets' relations with their suppliers are currently being looked at by the Competition Commission as part of its inquiry into the grocery market.

Keith Vaz: I welcome my hon. Friend's elevation from the Whips Office to the Front Bench. The next time he goes shopping in Tesco, will he reflect on the anecdotal evidence that a large number of suppliers are very concerned about the fact that the big supermarkets, Tesco included, are using their monopoly power to force down the prices of foodstuffs offered by suppliers? I know that an inquiry is under way, but will he see what he can do, as the Minister, to check on the evidence?

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We need to get to the heart of the matter. There is a widely held belief that large supermarkets have a stranglehold on suppliers. That has been said with respect to dairy farmers particularly. We should support the investigation by the Competition Commission and welcome the fact that it will focus on dairy farming. My noble Friend Lord Rooker has written to the Competition Commission—we have made a submission. We will not comment on the outcome at this stage, but when the investigation is complete, we will. We look forward to the evidence that the commission presents.

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the new Minister to his position and I wish him well. I am delighted that he has mentioned dairy farming. It is a matter that I raised in the House only a few days ago. The dairy industry is in crisis. In my constituency, in the years that I have represented it, more than 50 per cent. of the dairy farms it once had are no longer in existence. One village which was all dairy, North Rode, now has no dairy farms. Will the Minister talk to the superstores and supermarkets—not just with their suppliers, but about the producers, and the prices that the producers get? We have a wonderful country for both dairying and the production of food. Let us use it to the advantage of this country and of people in other countries who are starving.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal to hon. Members. They should put a supplementary question. When they speak for too long, it puts other Back Benchers at a disadvantage. That should go on the record.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for that question. When any business collapses, it is painful, but when a farm collapses it affects all of us, because farmers are the stewards of our countryside. We have seen a decrease in the dairy industry of about 6 per cent. over the past five years, but that is not specific to Britain. It has happened in Greece, Spain and Portugal. However, we are seeing price rises now at the farm gate. The dairy industry needs to move into other products, such as cheeses and organic yoghurts, as happens in Northern Ireland, where the industry relies more on the export market and prices are rising higher. We should eat British cheese—there are 750 varieties, more than in France—followed by British strawberries, preferably from the garden of England.

Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the hype of so-called organic foods by the supermarkets, which is obviously resulting in higher profits for them, but not necessarily for the growers here in Britain or in faraway places such as Kenya?

Jonathan R Shaw: I welcome the point that my hon. Friend makes. We want a fair deal for farmers in Britain and for farmers in developing countries as well, so that they can profit. It is vital that labelling, particularly of organic products, is accurate. Supermarkets should be clear that when they tell the consumer that their product is organic, it should indeed be organic.

Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that we live in a capitalist system? Does he recognise that some of these supermarkets produce the most efficient delivery systems for foodstuffs in the world? Does he recognise that to try to change that philosophy is probably a bit more than he and his Department are capable of? Does he recognise that free trade—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jonathan R Shaw: I always recognise my hon. Friend. I take on board his points, but I think it is important that we get the balance right in the relationship between the supplier and the supermarket, as both require certainty and flexibility in today's world.

Equine Welfare

Laurence Robertson: When he expects to introduce (a) licensing of livery yards and (b) regulations on tethering as provided for by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is the Government's intention to introduce secondary legislation on livery yards, and a code of practice will be introduced as soon as possible and in line with resources.

Laurence Robertson: That was not a terribly illuminating response, I am afraid. May I point out to the Minister that as many riding establishments are licensed, it seems correct that livery yards should be licensed in the same way? Does he intend that those approved by the British Horse Society should still require a licence from the local authority? With regard to tethering, is it his intention that the travelling population should comply with the rules that he introduces? Would he be prepared to attend the all-party group on the horse, which I have the honour of chairing, to discuss these matters?

Jonathan R Shaw: To answer the last question first—yes. Also, we are considering the code for tethering. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's points about the travelling community. We do not want horses to endure tethering for long periods. As for introducing licensing, he knows that we had to make a decision during the passage of the Animal Welfare Bill, and we chose to deal with circuses and greyhounds. We are committed to introducing legislation for livery yards, but there are always competing demands on time.

David Taylor: When the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on the draft Animal Welfare Bill, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals told us that there were several thousand complaints a year about incorrect tethering, illegal grazing and subsequent straying, which has caused significant problems in counties such as mine. Will the Minister consider the RSPCA's recommendation that the Government work much more closely with local authorities, particularly, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, in areas where there are significant encampments of the travelling community?

Jonathan R Shaw: I will most certainly do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question.

Flooding

Ann Cryer: What steps he is taking to draw lessons from the recent severe flooding; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: We have set up a wide-ranging review to identify lessons to be learned from the recent flooding to help us to manage and respond to such events in future. We aim to publish initial findings by the end of the year and subsequently a formal Government report.

Ann Cryer: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent appointment and on the high-quality nature of his team?
	Will my right hon. Friend report to the House any discussions that he has been having with representatives of British insurers regarding the recent flooding? I have in mind the difficulties that I experienced in my constituency in 2002, when one elderly lady was rendered homeless for 12 months because a big insurance company forced her to accept the lowest bid, which meant bringing in cowboys, and she had a very unhappy time.

Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. I join her in welcoming the new ministerial team at DEFRA. I am greatly looking forward to working with my colleagues.
	I have already spoken to the Association of British Insurers on the issues that my hon. Friend raises, and I know of the efforts that insurance companies are making to get round to visiting people and processing claims as quickly as possible, including changing some of the arrangements whereby they would usually require more than one quote. There will be big demands on the building and repairs industry to deal with the problems that people have experienced. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who is leading the recovery group, is also talking to the ABI about these issues.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Will he commit to ensuring that farmers such as Peter Vaughan in my constituency, who has lost 150 acres of potatoes, are guaranteed at least a large percentage of their single farm payment by Christmas? Many other members of the rural community have lost crops because of flooding, and constituents of mine in Tenbury Wells were flooded again this week. What can he do for Andrea Harrison and Mike Button of Phaze Computer Services who, despite the fact that they are not located in the rural community but in the more urban parts of my constituency, are very worried about their business?

Hilary Benn: I am acutely conscious of, and have discussed, the problems facing farmers in many constituencies, not least at last week's Great Yorkshire show. Two issues were raised with me of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware: the cross-compliance arrangements, which normally prevent farmers from going on to waterlogged land, and the use of set-aside land for grazing and foraging. I went away to consider them, and within 24 hours we lifted the rules on cross-compliance and waterlogged land until the end of this month to enable farmers to get on to the land and do what they can to rescue their crops. By notifying the Rural Payments Agency, they are able to use set-aside land for grazing and foraging—unless the agency says there is a difficulty—in recognition of the fact that the land they would otherwise use is currently underwater.
	We made those changes in direct response to representations made to me. We set the RPA a target for 2007—it having achieved the target of paying 96 per cent. of the money due by 30 June by reaching a figure of 98 per cent.—of paying 75 per cent. of the amount due by the end of March and 90 per cent. by the end of May. We shall look further at the position in the autumn.
	I met the agency's chief executive yesterday; I recognise that the service it has provided has not been acceptable, but things are improving. I am determined that we shall maintain that improvement and I am grateful to agency staff for their efforts.

Single Farm Payment Scheme

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the operation of the single farm payment scheme.

Hilary Benn: I reported to the House on 2 July that, as at 30 June, the Rural Payments Agency had paid out 98 per cent. of the estimated total funds, thus meeting its target for this year. The agency continues to work on the remaining single payment scheme claims, including cases where entitlements may need to be adjusted.

Ann Winterton: The Secretary of State has acknowledged the mind-boggling incompetence of the RPA in the past, and we look forward to dramatic improvements. Is he aware of increased problems for those who farm on both sides of the Welsh border, owing to a failure to think through the implications of devolved agriculture for cross-border farms? Why are English farmers further disadvantaged by the fact that modulation is much higher in England, and in Scotland too, amounting to almost 10 per cent. of entitlement?

Hilary Benn: On top of compulsory modulation under the common agricultural policy, we have decided to have a greater degree of voluntary modulation. I think that that is the right policy. I shall go away and consider the specific issue the hon. Lady raises about farmers farming on both sides of the border.
	Every Member recognises that this has not been a happy episode for the RPA, but I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge the steps that have been taken to try to improve the service. We should encourage agency staff to continue that work, and my noble Friend Lord Rooker has been holding surgeries at which Members can talk to him about individual cases. Those are continuing. I say to all hon. Members whose farmer constituents are experiencing difficulties, that they can talk to us about individual cases, and we shall do our best to sort them out.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Domestic Violence

Joan Humble: What steps she is taking to raise awareness of Crown Prosecution Service measures to tackle domestic violence, with particular reference to Blackpool, North and Fleetwood.

Vera Baird: Yesterday, we published the Crown Prosecution Service's annual snapshot survey of domestic violence cases, which shows that convictions are 66 per cent.—up by 20 per cent. since 2003, with 6 per cent. fewer cases being discontinued—and the number of cases recorded has doubled since 2002. There has been some success, and the latest figure suggests that complainants are starting to believe that they will be made safe and helped if they complain, and are therefore coming forward more. That should help to raise awareness in my hon. Friend's constituency, and elsewhere.

Joan Humble: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply and commend her and the Department on the success that they are achieving. The local Crown Prosecution Service in Blackpool—and, indeed, across Lancashire—is working closely with a variety of agencies to support the victims of domestic violence. However, some people still do not realise that changes have taken place and remain worried that perhaps they will not receive the sympathetic hearing that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. What further steps can she take, working through a variety of agencies, to offer reassurances so that victims come forward and are heard, and that prosecutions take place?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a lack of confidence among complainants, approximately 94 per cent. of whom are women because, historically when they have come forward, they have not been taken seriously. My hon. Friend is doing a good job of publicising the changes at the moment. The fact that we label courts as domestic violence specialist courts makes it clear that they are places to which people have recourse.
	However, the CPS has in recent years worked overwhelmingly with local non-governmental organisations and told them the sort of services it can offer. They are likely to be the place of first resort for domestic violence complainants if they come forward and I therefore hope that there is a continuum of information through that mechanism.

David Davies: Female genital mutilation is one of the most grievous forms of domestic violence in this country. Does it not shock and concern the Solicitor-General that, despite legislation that was passed in 2003 to prevent it, only one person has been investigated? As far I can discover through freedom of information requests, not one person has been prosecuted for that most grievous and wicked crime.

Vera Baird: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support in our attempts to tackle that grievous and often hidden crime. It is not easy to tackle—it is not easy to bring complainants forward or deal with them when they do come forward. However, we have no lack of political will to do that. If the hon. Gentleman can help us, I would be pleased to meet him and discuss the matter further. It will be a priority for my noble Friend the Attorney-General and me.

Disclosure (Offenders)

Philip Hollobone: If she will discuss with the senior presiding judge the guidance on disclosure to courts of information on prolific and priority offenders.

Vera Baird: I do not currently have plans to discuss the guidance, which has recently been reviewed, with the senior presiding judge. It is not the label "prolific and priority offender" that is important to the court when it sentences, but its function in ensuring that the defendant's full offending history and the risks of reoffending are before the court so that it can sentence appropriately.

Philip Hollobone: I urge the Solicitor-General to reconsider speaking to the presiding judge because the problem in Kettering and north Northamptonshire is that the police catch the prolific and priority offenders, bring them before the courts, but all too often they are let back out on the streets on bail, only to reoffend immediately. The police are tearing their hair out, and I suggest that it is up to her to ascertain whether she can persuade the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts Service to do something about that.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me that such a problem was certainly perceived in his constituency. A "premium service" has been set up in the criminal justice system generally to deal with PPOs. Like many criminal justice issues, it is intended to be co-ordinated through the local criminal justice boards. The intention is that the police and the CPS share the targets for tackling PPOs, and the premium service consists of getting people to court more quickly, increasing multi-agency co-operation and listing cases quickly so that the sort of problem that the hon. Gentleman raises should not arise. We can only do our utmost to ensure that all the evidence of the local harm that PPOs cause is before the courts so that they can be rigorously sentenced.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the steps that the Solicitor-General and her predecessors have taken, but it is important that the information is accurate. Will she assure hon. Members that, when multi agencies approach the subject, the information gathering is done efficiently and the information is accurate and disclosed to the defendant?

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. One reliable way of ensuring that the information that comes before the court is accurate is to ensure that it is agreed, as it were, by both parties to the case. As I have said, the CPS has been marked over the past few years by its ability to work closely with, and to enlist the support of, NGOs and other public sector and criminal agencies, to ensure that it makes progress in priority areas such as PPOs. Of course the CPS has a duty to try to ensure that the information that comes from those outside sources is accurate before it puts it before the courts.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) raised is about concrete examples brought to him of what one sometimes hears anecdotally from elsewhere. Is not the basic problem, if it exists in this form, nothing to do with whether there are prolific or priority offenders, but simply failures by the CPS in presenting cases in court to bring to the court's attention previous convictions and previous breaches of bail? It is difficult to gauge the extent to which that might be happening, but will the Solicitor-General consider whether the Crown Prosecution Service should conduct a review of how such information is presented to the court? If my hon. Friend is right, something that can be easily rectified is not being addressed, but if it were, it would go a long way towards dealing with such cases much better.

Vera Baird: I take from that what I hope and expect is support from the hon. Gentleman for saying that it would not help to put the label "PPO" before the court. What is imperative is to ensure that the full history of offending is put before the court. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) has raised an important point. We will look across the board at how well we are doing that work. If I found deficits, I would have no hesitation in asking the inspectorate to look at the position.

David Howarth: The debate so far illustrates how well the system can work when there are guidelines in place for which the Solicitor-General is accountable to the House. Does she accept that there is a case for maintaining that system, with the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General on one side and the prosecution service on the other, so that instead of discussions and instructions on specific individual prosecutions, the relationship is always one where the Law Officers give guidelines to prosecutors?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman and I were both involved in a debate about the roles of the prosecutors and the Law Officers respectively as recently as Monday. I believe that the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee is due to publish a report on the issue imminently, or that it has just published one. We shall publish a consultation document, I hope next week, which will look at the role of the Law Officers in that and a number of other regards. That is consonant with "The Governance of Britain", which the Prime Minister announced a few weeks ago. We intend to encourage all sorts of participation throughout the House of Commons and elsewhere to ensure that we get the model for the Law Officers right for the 21st century.

Targets (Police and CPS)

Mark Pritchard: What steps she has taken to ensure that targets set for the Crown Prosecution Service do not conflict with targets set for police forces in England and Wales.

Vera Baird: The Law Officers agree public service agreement performance targets for the criminal justice system with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. Common performance targets help to ensure that there are no conflicts between the targets for the police and those for the Crown Prosecution Service, or at least minimum ones.

Mark Pritchard: With respect to the Solicitor-General, I beg to differ on that point. Does she share my concern that often, and mysteriously, the targets set for the police require a higher evidence threshold than those set for the Crown Prosecution Service? Police forces such as West Mercia work hard to bring criminals before the courts, only to find that they are put at the bottom of the pile because the CPS has another target to meet, and that, whatever the evidence produced by the police, it is not brought before to court, meaning that criminals go free.

Vera Baird: Quite honestly, I do not think so. The levels of evidence required before the Crown Prosecution Service will bring a prosecution are extremely well known. They have been in place in the code for Crown prosecutors for many years and were very clear even before that was drafted. They are well known to the police. There can be no real difference in the standards required of the two organisations. Local criminal justice boards ought to ensure that there is good co-ordination between police and prosecutors across a whole range of issues—indeed, across all issues. If there are specific difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's area that he wants to draw to my attention, I hope that he will do so. I will ensure that they are forwarded.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2007
	Finance Act 2007
	Mental Health Act 2007
	Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007
	Vehicle Registration Marks Act 2007
	Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
	Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007
	Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007
	Whitehaven Harbour Act 2007
	London Local Authorities Act 2007

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 23 July—Motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by remaining stages of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords]. It is also expected that there will be a statement on housing.
	Tuesday 24 July—Opposition day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government's Handling of the Penal System" and a debate entitled "Attack on Global Poverty". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 25 July—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the appointment of the Chairman to the Statistics Board, followed by motions relating to Select Committee changes, followed by consideration of the draft legislative programme on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 26 July—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	I should also like to remind Members that they may table named day questions on 3, 5 and 10 September. They will be for answer on 10, 12 and 17 September. The Government may also issue written ministerial statements on those latter dates.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 8 October will include:
	Monday 8 October—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
	I should also like to remind the House that the state opening of Parliament will be on Tuesday 6 November.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the future business.
	Yesterday, the BBC suspended all phone-in competitions after it found out that yet more had been rigged. As our national public service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to restore public trust. May we have a debate in Government time on the BBC?
	This week, the Institute for Public Policy Research called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such a policy would be wrong in principle and wrong in practice, and would reflect the Government's failure to get a grip on illegal immigration, yet, during the deputy leadership campaign, when asked about such an amnesty, the right hon. and learned Lady said:
	"People who have worked hard here and paid their taxes should be allowed to stay."
	May we have a debate in Government time on the need to secure Britain's borders?
	The right hon. and learned Lady has just announced that the Government's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which was due to receive its Second Reading next Monday, has now been deferred until October, just a couple of weeks before the end of the parliamentary Session. We know that that significant piece of legislation will change in the autumn. Its deferral is an abuse of the carry-over procedure and shows disdain for Parliament. Why will the Government not be honest and introduce the Bill in the next parliamentary Session?
	Yesterday, in Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that
	"the Home Secretary will consult on whether... cannabis should be moved from class C to class B."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 268.]
	It was the present Government who reclassified cannabis from B to C in the first place, but we will support their U-turn. For the second week in a row, the Prime Minister has announced a reversal of policy in an answer to a planted question rather than in an oral statement that allows hon. Members to put questions to a Minister. That betrays a disregard for hon. Members. Why was this change not announced properly by the Home Secretary in a statement?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister also confirmed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries can sit on Select Committees. He gave the feeble excuse that they will not sit on Committees that scrutinised their Departments, but he thinks it acceptable for Members who work for Ministers, and therefore for the Executive, to sit on Select Committees whose job it is to scrutinise the Executive. That betrays a disregard for Select Committees, so can we have a debate on the future of such Committees?
	Under this Government, 125,000 people have lost their savings because their pension fund went bust. We proposed a lifeboat fund properly to compensate those who lost out through no fault of their own. The Prime Minister had Labour MPs whipped into voting against the lifeboat. Some Labour Members agreed with us and the other place agreed with us. Now, however, Ministers have invoked parliamentary privilege to stop the debate and limit compensation. So much for respecting Parliament and so much for helping those who have lost their pensions. Will the Pensions Secretary make an urgent statement on why he has used parliamentary privilege in this way?
	The Prime Minister says that he wants to make Parliament the crucible of our political life, but those examples—from just this last week—show nothing but disrespect for hon. Members, disregard for parliamentary procedure and disdain for parliamentary scrutiny. Is it not clear that putting Parliament first is just a new type of spin?

Harriet Harman: The paper on the governance of Britain sets out a number of ways in which we were moving forward and working with both sides of the House on ensuring that we strengthen its important role. If the right hon. Lady wishes us to consider any additional individual points, we are happy to so do. Our determination is to strengthen the House's role, as we believe that strong Government works best when held to account by a strong Parliament.
	On the right hon. Lady's individual issues, she first raised the question of the BBC. Both I and the Government are strong supporters of the BBC— [Interruption.] Absolutely, we are strong supporters. It is important that the BBC retains the trust of all its viewers, but the particular issue that the right hon. Lady raised does not apply only to the BBC; as Michael Grade said, it applies across all broadcasting companies. The matter could be discussed further at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on Monday or perhaps debated on the Adjournment.
	The right hon. Lady raised the position of those whose immigration status may have expired and of people who have come to this country without proper permission. It has been the policy of successive Governments to look at individual cases and judge whether it would be right to exercise discretion to allow people to stay. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised such an individual case in Prime Minister's questions yesterday. As well as having a policy that should be enforced firmly and fairly, we believe it right to look into individual cases. Following the particular case raised yesterday, the Prime Minister has agreed to defer the deportation. As I say, it is right to reflect on individual cases in that way.
	On the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, with the interim report of Sir Ronnie Flanagan coming out in the summer, it might be better, as has been suggested, for Second Reading to take place the other side of the recess, if the Government are to be able to bring forward further issues in that Bill.
	The right hon. Lady raised the question of the cannabis review. There is new evidence that the cannabis used, particularly by young people, is stronger than it used to be, and therefore more dangerous— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must allow the Leader of the House to reply to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).  [Interruption.] Order.

Harriet Harman: As well as the evidence that the cannabis used particularly by young people is stronger than it used to be, there is more evidence of the link between use of that strong cannabis by young people and serious mental health problems. That issue has been raised with me by the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley hospital in my constituency. If new evidence emerges, it is right that the Government listen, look at the evidence and publish a review document.
	The right hon. Lady also made a point about Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We need to recognise the important role of Select Committees, and we all support their work. Under the previous Government, PPSs did, from time to time, sit on Select Committees. Nobody in the House would think it right for a PPS to sit on a Select Committee for their own Department. The right hon. Lady will know, however, that PPSs are not members of the Government. She is perhaps asking us to look afresh at a policy introduced by her Government and continued by this Government.
	On pensions, we need to remember that those people whose occupational schemes went bust received no help at all under the previous Government. We have gone a long way to set up financial support systems for those who have paid into pension schemes throughout their working life and whose schemes have gone bust. We are putting forward costed proposals, which we know we can afford, to move from a figure of 80 per cent. of the core pension to 90 per cent.
	I am not quite sure what point the right hon. Lady is making about parliamentary privilege. If she is talking about the House of Lords overriding the will of the elected House, I do not agree with her. If she is talking about something else, one of my hon. Friends will have to advise me as to what she is getting at. I say to the House, and to the right hon. Lady, that Members of the House should be able to represent the interests of their constituents and to hold the Government to account. As Leader of the House, that is what I am determined to ensure.

Ken Purchase: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1856?
	 [ That this House is concerned at the enormous potential expenditure in taking the academy programme to 400 schools with its heavy subsidies to miscellaneous private sponsors provided on the basis of unproven, possibly unjustified, assumptions about resulting improvements to education in disadvantaged areas; urges the establishment of an independent inquiry to evaluate the performance of academies, compared to modernised state schools to assess whether any improvements are more than a temporary Hawthorne effect, to assess the effects of academies on neighbouring schools, and the overall performance of the education authority, to examine the value for money of academies as opposed to spending the same sums on secondary schools more generally, and to look at ways to merge the two systems, academies and local authority schools in order to ensure the unified development of the system and avoid further divisions in public education.]
	May I also draw her attention to early-day motion 605? Those two early-day motions express the growing concern in the House about the apparent headlong rush by the Government into promoting academies, which are now to number 400. The construction of such academies appears to have no ultimate cost, apart from a global figure of £35,000 to £40,000, and there is no real evidence about their efficacy. Will she draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to those important matters, and arrange a debate as early as possible?

Harriet Harman: I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend. He will also have an opportunity to raise such issues on Thursday. We are all concerned to see that every area has good local schools, which have proper resources and are properly accountable. I pay tribute to the Peckham academy in my constituency, where standards have been improved for the young people in that school.

Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House announced that on Monday there would be a debate on what was originally a private Member's Bill on forced marriages introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is a Bill that we welcome in this House. Will the right hon. and learned Lady use that step as a welcome precedent for making sure that there are other opportunities from Monday to Thursday for private Members' Bills that start either here or in the other place to be debated so that they have the chance of fair consideration, which has not been the case in the past?
	The Leader of the House has announced that we will have a debate on housing. Will it also be an opportunity to debate planning, which is often linked with it? Will we be able to debate whether the Prime Minister has pre-empted the consultation on a new super-quango to take major infrastructure planning decisions? It is a controversial issue and there are still meant to be some weeks of discussion and consultation, yet the Prime Minister indicated last week that he might have come to a final view.
	As for Select Committees, in addition to the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) from the Conservative Front Bench, would it not be fair that regional Select Committees reflect the balance of the political representation in each region? That must be the right way of doing it. Will the Leader of the House reflect on whether, if we are to have proper representation, even within the funny system that we have for electing us all to the House, we should have at least that fairness when the new Committees are set up after next week?
	Given that the Leader of the House has clearly accepted that it would be inappropriate to consider the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill before the summer recess, may I strongly back the request to accept the fact that it would be illogical to bring it back in October when the Government intend to amend it in November? We ought to consider the Bill in November in its final form so that we can debate what the Government are proposing.
	On the matters that are not in the right hon. and learned Lady's statement, we receive a welcome indication now of what statements are to be made to the House. Today, for example, we have a statement on Lords reform. I gather that there are to be further statements before we break. Could we hear from the Leader of the House what they are to be about so that people can plan and everyone knows what is coming? If we are to have Government statements, may we have maximum notice rather than wake up in the morning and only then know what is coming in the afternoon? May we have statements rather than just veiled hints on changes of policy such as on casinos and drugs? Can they be absolutely backed up by guarantees that the policies will be evidence-based rather than prejudice-based?
	I am sad to say that probably many more people take part in interactive programmes and phone-ins on broadcast media shows than watch Question Time in this place on their televisions. I hope that that will change. May we have a debate about all media and all programmes, as the Leader of the House said? It is probably the case that there has been fiddling of the system by all those who broadcast such programmes. We really need to clean it up once and for all.

Harriet Harman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the important provisions in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. He was right to say that the Bill came from a private Member of the House of Lords. There is always the opportunity for the Government to take forward private Member's business on that basis. We will keep under review the points that he made about finding time to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning and housing. I said in my business statement that there would be a statement on housing on Monday. We all recognise that planning is integral to our ability to provide to rent and to buy at affordable prices the homes that local people need. There will be an opportunity for him to raise that point on Monday.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Select Committees. Obviously, their membership will be decided in the usual way. I think that it makes sense for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to be considered the other side of the recess. It does not make sense to withdraw it from the House and reintroduce it. The Bill contains important measures that we need to get on with. I responded to points made on that last week, and they were part of our consideration about moving the Bill to the other side of the recess.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about advance information to be given to the House in relation to statements. Obviously, we do not want to announce firmly the day that a statement is to be made and then find that for other reasons it is subject to change, but it would be helpful for hon. Members to have some idea what issues are likely to form the basis of statements, so I will see what we can do on that.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concern about the BBC and recognised rightly that this is a serious matter for all the broadcast media. Ofcom is also involved and I have no doubt that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which has looked at the issue in the past, will reconsider it.

Julie Morgan: When can we have a debate about arms exports? I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the report published by Amnesty and other organisations this week about the possibility of India supplying Burma with advanced light helicopters, which are built containing components made in the EU and the UK, despite the EU arms embargo as a result of the appalling history of human rights in Burma. I have been contacted this week by a number of my constituents about this issue. How can we take it forward?

Harriet Harman: First, I pay tribute to Amnesty for the work that it has done on this report and for all the important work that it does. The House may be aware that the Indian Government have denied that they have sold the helicopters to Burma, but it is something that we are concerned about and that we have raised with our partners in the European Union. We are all appalled at the human rights abuses in Burma, and want to work as hard as we can to put pressure on it.

Edward Garnier: Could the Leader of the House please arrange for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Justice, beyond that which he is going to make this afternoon, so that he can give rather wider publicity to the contents of a letter that he seems to have written only to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about the Government's policy on the provision and commissioning of probation services? In his letter of 17 July he said:
	"The Bill transfers the statutory duty for making arrangements for the provision of probation services to the Secretary of State. This does not mean that the Secretary of State will commission everything directly. ... The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to delegate this responsibility to the probation trust, or another lead provider, and this is what will happen in practice."
	That did not come out very clearly in yesterday's debate. It ought to be in the Bill. Could the right hon. and learned Lady invite the Secretary of State for Justice, the former Leader of the House, to come here and put on record what he said in the letter that he sent only to the hon. Member for Walthamstow?

Harriet Harman: I think that that was exactly the subject of the debate on the Offender Management Bill. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has set that position out. So, as I see it, he is not giving new information on a selective basis to one hon. Member. It is the position as it is in the Bill.
	I perhaps failed to answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead about parliamentary privilege in relation to pensions. It is of course the case that this House, as the elected House, rightly reserves to itself decisions on financial matters. No hon. Member in this House would think it right for us to allow the House of Lords to make decisions on financial matters. If that is the parliamentary privilege that the right hon. Lady was talking about, I think that we should stand by it.

David Winnick: While any change about recalling Parliament is to be welcomed—I remember what the Prime Minister said—may I ask the question that the Opposition parties are not willing to put to my right hon. and learned Friend? Why is Parliament closing down next week for 11 weeks? Is there real justification for such a long break, even though constituency work is obviously undertaken? A shorter break would certainly be much appreciated.

Harriet Harman: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to convey the impression that there is not a great deal of constituency work going on while the House is not sitting. There is a constant balance between hon. Members working in their constituencies and properly holding the Government to account. We need to do both. My hon. Friend will know that we have tried different ways to get around this. We have to accommodate the party conferences, but we have introduced the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the Executive by asking questions during the recess. That is a welcome step forward.

David Wilshire: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1952?
	 [That this House acknowledges the distinguished service of the hon. Member for Calder Valley to the Council of Europe over nine years; applauds her contribution to the work of the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee, often acting as rapporteur on key human rights issues; recognises her pioneering work on the Equal Opportunities Committee and on the Sub Committee on Children and Sub Committee on Violence Against Women; pays tribute to her abilities in her role as Chair of the Labour Group; and wishes her well in the forthcoming election for Leader of the Labour Group on the UK Delegation to the Council of Europe.]
	It refers to the position of leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe. The motion states that there is to be a contest for the position between the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). I understand that the election is to take place next week. As the Leader of the House will know, the Council of Europe is a guardian of democracy and, as she will also know, the UK delegation is an all-party delegation. Will she assure the House that in the interests of democracy every member of the delegation will be entitled to vote in that election next week?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that that will be the case.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on the role of contractors in the building industry, such as Lovell, which has done a considerable amount of valuable regeneration work in my constituency, paid for mainly out of the public purse? However, those large contractors are impervious to looking after the individuals who take on the homes that they have constructed. Lovell has an appalling record on rectifying the faults in those homes. Given that public money goes into making Lovell large profits, should we not have a debate about public control of those large contractors and how they fulfil their obligations to the people that we want to help?

Harriet Harman: We want more homes, and more affordable homes, to rent and to buy, and to make sure that they are of the highest quality, including to the highest environmental standards. My hon. Friend has raised an important point that I shall bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing.

John Hemming: The Government have caused some confusion with the announcement about changes to public service agreement targets. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement on the issue of adoption targets and whether they are to be cancelled? Roughly between 15 and 20 children are wrongfully adopted every week and it would be useful to clarify the situation before the recess.

Harriet Harman: We want to ensure that those children who cannot be with their parents because of the risk of neglect or abuse are properly taken into care. If a permanent placement can be found for such children with a family by way of adoption, we would all agree that that is much better than leaving them in a children's home or moving them from one foster carer to another. On targets, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is reviewing targets. We want to make sure that we do not have more than are necessary and that they are mutually consistent, but we must not lose sight of the fact that people want the Government and public services to do important things. If a target is able to focus work in that respect, that is what we should do. One example is cutting waiting times for hospital treatment.

Geraldine Smith: May I congratulate the Government on scrapping regional assemblies, on introducing regional Select Committees and on the proposals for regional questions and a regional Minister? Those are welcome changes, and something for which many Members have called for a long time. Can I ask about the time scales? When will the regional Select Committees be up and running? How will regional questions operate? Will they be held in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall?

Harriet Harman: As I announced, the motions relating to Select Committee changes will be discussed on Wednesday. I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the work of the Government in focusing on the regions. One of the reasons why we have seen consistent and sustained economic growth is that we have focused on concerns region by region. That is what we continue to do to make the work of the Government in each region more accountable.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate on the Government's strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan? Many of us believe that the cost in terms of lives and casualties in Iraq outweighs any political or military objective that we can reasonably obtain and, in Helmand province in Afghanistan, we have taken to ourselves objectives on which we cannot succeed, given the existing troop levels, and the casualties are too high.

Harriet Harman: As we are nearly into the recess, I cannot offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman a debate next week. Obviously it is too late to apply for a debate on the Adjournment, on which he could raise this issue. I will bring his points to the attention of ministerial colleagues; this is something to which we will no doubt return in the autumn.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the relevant Department to undertake to commission some work to determine the extent of international cold-calling, whereby UK businesses using overseas call centres escape the telephone preference scheme and cause significant distress to our constituents?

Harriet Harman: I will draw this to the attention of my ministerial colleague. This is a matter for Ofcom, but it is also a question of social and public responsibility. British companies need to act responsibly in this country and abroad and certainly should not be able to get around any provision designed to help consumers and the public.

Bob Spink: The BBC used to be, and should be, a cherished and trusted national institution. May we have a debate about the recent disappointments and, in particular, the BBC's pro-European bias, which flies in the face of the fact that 70 per cent. of the British public want looser ties with Europe?

Harriet Harman: The BBC has recognised the need to rebuild trust and is still a very much cherished institution. On Europe, we all recognise that there are some issues on which we cannot work individually as a country. We cannot do as much as we need to do on climate change acting on our own; we cannot do as much as we want to do on international development and the menace of human trafficking acting on our own. Therefore, in the interests of this country and the world, we have to act with our European colleagues.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has secured a timely debate in Westminster Hall next Wednesday on UK relations with Russia. May we have a written statement before then about the extraordinary circumstances in which a man was arrested by the Metropolitan police and accused of conspiracy to prepare the murder of Mr. Berezovsky? The Metropolitan police took the man to Heathrow, put him on a plane and said, "Shoo, shoo, go away." Against the backdrop of last Monday's events, that is an extraordinary situation and Parliament should be told what is going on. It seems that Berezovsky is running this country, rather than being a visitor. It is now time for a degree of candour in advance of the debate next Wednesday. Why was this man put on an aeroplane after we had heard all the nonsense on Monday about the rule of law? Discuss.

Harriet Harman: I am here to explain the business of the House. My hon. Friend has raised the question of the debate in Westminster Hall next week, which Members can attend if they want. Allegations of criminal activity are independently investigated by the police. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the police exercise their powers independently, and not only would nobody try to lean on them—it would be wrong if they did—but they would protest and resist if they were lent on. If there were sufficient evidence for a prosecution, it would be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which would decide—again independently—whether a prosecution should be pursued. If a non-British national is involved and the CPS wants to bring them to justice in this country, it will notify the immigration authorities that it wishes a stay on any deportation proceedings. I am confident that that is what happened in this case. Allegations have been made, but I can assure the House that the independence of the police and the prosecution service obtain.

Pete Wishart: We need a statement on the Government's drugs strategy, especially after this morning's events—Ministers were falling over themselves to admit to past cannabis indiscretions. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that no one cares about what we MPs got up to when we were students, and that such events only serve to take us further away from having a grown-up, sensible debate about drugs in our community?

Harriet Harman: A grown-up, sensible debate is exactly what we should have, and the Home Secretary is taking that goal forward. We must look at the evidence and examine how best to use the considerable additional resources that we have made available for dealing with drug abuse problems. I pay tribute to those who do the difficult work of helping drug addicts and abusers. We cannot have a grown-up, sensible debate if it involves party political point-scoring. We will issue a consultation document, and any proposals that arise from it will be brought before the House.

Kate Hoey: You, Mr. Speaker, more than anyone will know how long the House has waited for a debate in Government time on Zimbabwe. We will have such a debate this afternoon, but is the Leader of the House aware that the Foreign Secretary will not attend it despite the fact that it has been in his diary since before the last reshuffle and he is not away from London? As there is no Minister for Africa, his absence insults Parliament and the people of Zimbabwe.

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done in raising the terrible situation in Zimbabwe. I know that she will wish to contribute to the debate, and it is important that it is taking place. Members should come to the Chamber and listen to the speech of the Minister who attends it, as what is important is what they say and whether it addresses the key problems.

George Young: May I refer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on the Pensions Bill? The Leader of the House has announced the consideration of Lords amendments for next week. Many Members were hoping to have another opportunity to vote on Lords amendments relating to the lifeboat funds. I understand that that will not now be possible because at a late stage in the progress of the Bill and after the Government have been much criticised, they have precluded any further discussion by invoking financial privilege. How does the Leader of the House reconcile that with all the warm words that have been uttered about restoring power to Parliament?

Harriet Harman: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the parliamentary process and of the right of this House to hold the Executive to account, so I am not sure what he is suggesting. Is he suggesting that we allow a decision to be made in the other place that should rightly be made in this House? We must ensure that this House has supremacy when there is disagreement.

Bill Wiggin: I wish to ask the Leader of the House about the dagging of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. She will be aware that DEFRA has a wide range of responsibilities. I have listened carefully to what she has said about transparency and holding Departments to account, but if she looks at today's Order Paper she will see that DEFRA questions have been docked of at least 10 minutes. Will she use the recess time to think of a way in which big Departments might receive proper scrutiny and a full amount of Question Time—if possible even more than the hour that we used to get?

Harriet Harman: Yes, we will look into the allocation of time for departmental questions; as there have been machinery of government changes, we must look again at that. We will bring forward proposals on it when the House returns in the autumn.

Michael Connarty: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to look at early-day motion 1949, asking for support for the report of the cross-party group on childhood leukaemia and electric and magnetic fields, which has over the past year been ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate)?
	 [That this House welcomes the launch of the July 2007 Report of the Cross-party Inquiry into Childhood Leukaemia and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (ELF EMF); supports the recommendations of the inquiry which includes a moratorium on the building of new homes and schools within 60 metres of existing high voltage overhead transmission lines, increased funding for research into the link between childhood leukaemia and EMF, the implementation of the Government's SAGE report recommendations, and the protection of homeowners by providing them with information about the levels of EMF in any property; and calls upon the Government to take into account the dangers of EMF in transmission and distribution in its Energy Review and on the Department for Communities and Local Government to take all the inquiry's recommendations into consideration in planning for all new homes and schools.]
	Will the Leader of the House find time to get Ministers in the appropriate Department to look at our recommendations, some of which are pressing? We are calling for a moratorium on the building of houses within 60 m of pylons. Will she also ensure that there is dialogue with the Scottish Executive, which is considering the proposal for the Beauly to Denny supergrid? It will be a 400 kW grid and we are calling for a zone around it of 200 m in which schools and houses should not be built. That is a pressing matter. Many children have died from childhood leukaemia that is clearly linked to the proximity of their homes to pylons.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does as part of the cross-party group on childhood leukaemia, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his chairmanship of that group. It is a difficult subject on which the science is advancing. I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Christopher Fraser: Government figures released this week show that robbery offences in Norfolk have risen by a shocking 24 per cent., which is the highest increase in the country. I have consistently called on the Government to provide adequate funding for the Norfolk constabulary. Do not these figures show that the Government have failed to provide Norfolk with sufficient resources for us to have enough of a police presence on our streets? Because of the figures, will the right hon. and learned Lady give time for a debate after the summer recess on rural policing?

Harriet Harman: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there will be a statement on crime reduction in about an hour's time, when he might raise his point. Under this Government there have been considerably more resources for the Norfolk constabulary than under the previous Administration, and I pay tribute to the work it does along with local councils and voluntary organisations.

Dan Norris: May we have a debate on child protection? The Labour Government should be given credit for some wonderful achievements over the past 10 years, and there have also been some encouraging statements over the last two weeks about child protection and joined-up thinking between Government Departments. There will, however, be challenges in the future and we need to debate them soon if we are to improve the lot of children and their safety.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention. The subject of the family justice system has already been raised. I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. It is important that we do not allow the family justice system to be the poor relation of the criminal justice system. The work it does in ensuring that children can be taken into care can save children's lives, but if it gets things wrong, that can ruin the lives of both parents and children. I take on board his suggestion that we in this House should give greater consideration to that important work.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has made an announcement about motions relating to Select Committees, including the Modernisation Committee, which will be debated next Wednesday. In respect of the regional Select Committees, can she advise the House of who will be appointed to those Committees—there are a lot of them—who will staff them, whether the Chairmen of the new Committees will be on the Liaison Committee, and whether they will be paid? A substantial announcement has been made without thought being given to those important questions.

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the intention is to increase accountability and scrutiny of work done by public authorities in the regions. Further thinking is under way and motions will be tabled on Monday to be debated on Wednesday.

Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday the judge who presided over the inquest on the death of Gareth Myatt wrote to the Government with 34 recommendations for action? Will she therefore ensure that we have a debate on early-day motion 1714, which prays for the annulment of statutory instrument No. 1709, which would make it even easier to restrain young people in secure training centres?
	 [That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 1709), dated 13th June 2007, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be annulled.]

Harriet Harman: The question of restraint of young people in young offenders institutions, which is a very difficult issue, is under discussion in the Ministry of Justice. If there are any further points to be made, they will be brought to the House. I wish to express my condolences to the family of the young man who died, and the important lessons that arise from the coroner's inquest in that case must be learned.

Christopher Huhne: Does the Leader of the House agree that there is increasing parliamentary and public interest in the policy areas covered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and will she therefore assure the House that the cut in its time for questions will be restored?

Harriet Harman: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said to another hon. Member, which was that we will take the opportunity of the recess to review the arrangements for questions. He is right that DEFRA is an important Department and we will ensure that proper time is available to ensure its accountability to this House.

Graham Allen: The Prime Minister has launched a national debate on the future of our democracy, which will involve people and institutions throughout the land. As usual, one institution is a little off the pace and oblivious to those opportunities. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that proper pre-legislative scrutiny of the Green Paper "The Governance of Britain" takes place across the relevant Committees of this House before the summer, so that the public can start to get involved in the process of remaking our democracy?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have issued the draft legislative programme for consultation. We want to have more Bills notified in advance and more of their provisions published in draft form, and we need to have more discussion before we debate them in this House. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that is just the start of the process of ensuring more accountability of the Government to the House, and greater topicality for the debates in the House, so that the public can see that we are debating topical issues. We will be able to make progress in many other areas, and I know that my hon. Friend, who has a longstanding interest in such matters, will play an important part in that debate.

Christopher Chope: Will the Government now withdraw their objection to my Bill on the reclassification of cannabis, which could then reach the statute book quickly? Can the Leader of the House update us on the position of home information packs, following the humiliation of the Government in the House of Lords yesterday?

Harriet Harman: The home information packs for larger properties will go ahead as previously announced to the House. As for the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the Government have announced a review. We will consult and consider the evidence, and if any changes to legislation are proposed they will be brought to the House as Government business.

Ian Cawsey: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the actions of some insurance companies following the recent flooding? A few days ago I met a family from my constituency who were flooded. They do not live on a flood plain, but the combination of the extreme weather and a burst water main near their property led to a one-off flood. The response of their insurance company has been to say that their premium may be hiked and their excess—currently £50—raised to £7,500. Surely that is a disproportionate response to a one-off event caused by freakish weather and a coincidental burst water main? Can we find time to debate such outrages?

Harriet Harman: It is important that the insurance industry operates fairly towards those people who have bought insurance policies. I will bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and I suggest that he write to her with the details of that bad sounding case.

Robert Wilson: The crime figures out today show a sharp rise in violence against the person in the Thames valley and a 110 per cent. rise in common assault in the Reading area. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on crime and the fear of crime, because many of my constituents are increasingly concerned by violent crime?

Harriet Harman: There will be a statement in about an hour's time, and the hon. Gentleman will also have an opportunity to raise issues of concern to his constituents on the Adjournment next week. I take this opportunity to remind him that the increase in reported crime is to be welcomed in some aspects. For example, we know that rape has traditionally been under-reported, so that when we see an increase in the reports of rape it might mean not an increase in the incidence of rape, but women's greater confidence in the criminal justice system. We know that we see only the tip of the iceberg in the reporting of domestic violence, so that when those figures increase it is to be welcomed. We need to have a sophisticated and in-depth understanding of the figures and recognise that overall the likelihood of being a victim of crime has fallen under this Government.

Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House make time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to debate the utter failure of some police forces and local authorities to use the powers that we in Parliament have given them to remove unauthorised Traveller encampments, such as the one in Theale in my constituency? Local people have seen their recreation ground invaded, squatted on and used as a public toilet and rubbish tip, while the police fail to use the section 61 public order powers that we made available to them.

Harriet Harman: I will draw the issue to the attention of colleagues. It is important that the police and local authorities use the powers that they have to stop unauthorised Travellers' sites, which can make people's lives such a misery.

Tony Baldry: May we have an early debate on the future of general hospitals, especially given Lord Darzi's comments last week that the days of district general hospitals providing services to a high level are over? Such comments cause great concern to those who are campaigning to maintain the integrity of general hospitals, such as the Horton hospital in my constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree with Nye Bevan, who said that the NHS will last only while there are still enough folk willing to fight for it?

Harriet Harman: The NHS will last while we have a Labour Government determined to increase investment in it. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituency was in London, because Lord Darzi's quotes relate to the review in London. As a London Member of Parliament, I know that my constituents want the very best specialist services, as well as good local services as near as possible to where they live. As change in medical practice proceeds, we have to ensure that the way in which services are delivered also changes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 12 hon. Members left who wish to contribute. Many of them are the usual ones—I shall not say that they are the usual suspects. I can seek to take them all, but they must ask only one brief supplementary question.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on corporate responsibility? Last Monday,  The Guardian carried a very damning report exposing well known companies and retailers in this country and accusing them of driving down costs at the expense of working conditions, for profit. Is it not time to regulate or legislate to ensure that UK-based companies are held to account?

Harriet Harman: That is exactly how the Companies Act 2006 should work. We need to hold companies to account for their corporate social responsibility in this country, and we also need to monitor how British companies act overseas. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for International Development.

Roger Williams: The response of the Leader of the House to concerns about the reduction in time for DEFRA questions seemed to improve as she considered the matter. Will she therefore consider extending the time available for those questions, given the interest in climate change, single farm payments, flooding and other issues?

Harriet Harman: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the first answer that I gave.

Madeleine Moon: Britain's birth rate is falling, but our divorce rate is rising. May we have a debate on whether the way forward is to offer parents struggling with their work-life balance a card like a loyalty bonus card, worth £20 a week, so that they remain in their marriages?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right that our birth rate is falling and that many families find it difficult to combine bringing up children and holding down jobs. We had a statement last week that included families. The Government know that families come in all shapes and sizes and need practical support, whereas the Tories simply sit in moral judgment on them. That is nothing more than "back to basics", but with an open-necked shirt.

Andrew MacKay: Unfortunately, but inevitably, the British people have lost trust in the state broadcaster, so does the Leader of the House accept that next Monday's Question Time is quite inadequate for the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to deal with the matter? We have had two statements a day for the past week, most of them pretty irrelevant, so may we have one next week on a matter that directly concerns the British public?

Harriet Harman: The BBC Trust has moved quickly to address matters that are of significant public concern. We set it up to represent the interests of licence-fee payers and to ensure that the BBC provides high-quality output. It is a longstanding principle that the Government do not interfere in editorial decisions. We know that the BBC is taking action on the matter, and we support that. We will be looking to see what action is taken, but meanwhile we strongly support the BBC.

David Taylor: May we have a debate on the gadarene flight to large-scale outsourcing of Government Departments' executive agencies? The most recent example involves the Department for Transport's Vehicle and Operator Service Agency, and the result will be that private profit and road safety are mixed in the most unsatisfactory way, as has happened in mainland Europe and Ireland. What is the rationale for the move, as there is precious little evidence base for improved value for money or for better delivery of Government objectives?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the matter to the attention of my ministerial colleagues, and I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on winning the Hansard Society award for Back Bencher of the year.

John Redwood: May we have an urgent debate on the ruling that the House of Lords cannot insist on amendments to any Bill that has spending implications? As that would mean that the Lords could not intervene effectively on any Bill, would not it be more honest to abolish it?

Harriet Harman: There will be a statement on reform of the House of Lords as soon as we finish this business statement.

Ian Davidson: Aircraft carrier statement—when?

Harriet Harman: I think that there will be one in due course.

Peter Bone: Under Prime Minister Blair, people could sleep safely at night because they knew that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would automatically become acting Prime Minister if he were incapacitated. Under the new Prime Minister, it is not clear who would take over. Will the Leader of the House say who would become acting Prime Minister if the new Prime Minister were incapacitated?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman can sleep easily in his bed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not incapacitated.

John Bercow: May we have a full day's debate on the proposed appointment of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Select Committees? In all sincerity, I advise the right hon. and learned Lady that it is a bit much for a Government who have spent so much time criticising their predecessor to claim now that they are imitating them and that, in any case, two wrongs do not make a right. We must separate the Executive from the legislature, and it would be outrageous to deprive genuine Labour Back Benchers of the chance to sit on Select Committees and use their time and talents to scrutinise the Government's work.

Harriet Harman: I did no more than point out that the outrage expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was feigned, given that the practice was outlawed by the previous Government. I assured the House that this Government would ensure that Parliamentary Private Secretaries would not sit on Committees covering the Departments to which they are responsible. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that they are not members of the Government.

Mark Pritchard: Given the serious allegations of fraud and deception in some parts of the BBC that were described earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and others, does the Leader of the House agree that it is right that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should make a statement to the House? It is not good enough for her to say that the BBC Trust will look into the matter. The British public expect better: they pay for the organisation, and they need answers quickly.

Harriet Harman: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. If he feels that he needs to make a statement, no doubt he will bring one to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: May I point out that there is little parliamentary time between now and the intergovernmental conference in October that will agree the text of the new EU reform treaty? So far, the Government have been singularly unable to explain what is substantially different between the new treaty and the old constitution, for which they granted a referendum. Will she therefore guarantee that there will be a full day's debate on the subject before Ministers depart for the conference?

Harriet Harman: There usually is a statement around the time of intergovernmental conferences. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the treaty makes it clear that the constitutional concept has been abandoned.

Julian Lewis: Following on from that excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), may we have an urgent statement on the adequacy of the French and German translation service supplied to No. 10 Downing street? Giscard d'Estaing has said that the changes to the amending treaty are "more cosmetic than real" and that the "treaty remains largely unaltered", while Chancellor Merkel has said that the
	"substance of the constitution is preserved".
	Clearly, the Prime Minister cannot have been furnished with those transcripts, as it would be inconceivable that he would go back on his promise to hold a referendum on changing the constitution of Europe.

Harriet Harman: There is no going back on any such promise. Obviously, repeating existing treaties and drawing them all together means that a lot of the substance remains unchanged.

House of Lords Reform

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the way forward on reform of the House of Lords.
	On 7 March 2007, after the free votes in both Houses, I said that I would make arrangements to reconvene the cross-party working group and that, after discussions with that group, I would return to the House to make a statement outlining the Government's plans. Those free votes marked the fulfilment of the specific terms of one of our manifesto commitments on Lords reform. While the votes were an important milestone, we must not now lose the opportunity to make further and more fundamental reform happen.
	In March, this House voted overwhelmingly—indeed, by a majority of 113—for a wholly elected House of Lords. It backed by a margin of 38 a substantially elected House based on an 80 per cent. elected and a 20 per cent. appointed element. It also voted by a majority of 280 to remove the remaining hereditary peers. As part of a comprehensive package of reforms, the Government are committed to removing the anomaly of the remaining hereditary peers, in line with the will of this House.
	As this House will be aware, at the same time the other place voted for a wholly appointed House by a majority of 240. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement of 3 July that we should proceed in line with the wishes of this House, which all accept is the primary Chamber. That approach was underlined in the Green Paper on constitutional reform, "The Governance of Britain", which I published on the same day. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are committed by their 2005 manifestos to a substantially elected House of Lords.  [ Interruption. ] There was no commitment in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos to a free vote.
	Tomorrow in the other place Lord Steel's private Member's Bill on Lords reform will have its Second Reading. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will expand on our response when he speaks in that debate; suffice it now to say that the Bill does not contain the comprehensive reform that is the clear will of this House.
	The cross-party talks before the free votes were successful in building up a significant degree of consensus on a range of issues, as reflected in the White Paper on House of Lords reform, which I published in February. I believe that this is the best way of proceeding. I shall continue to lead the cross-party talks, and since the free votes, we have held two further meetings. Given that all three main parties are committed by their manifestos to further reform of the House of Lords, it is right that the group should consist of Front-Bench representatives of the parties, as well as representatives from the Cross Benchers and the Lords Spiritual, but of course we want the widest possible consensus, and I intend to make arrangements so that we can take proper account of the views of all parliamentarians, including non-party independent Members, and interest groups and the public.
	The White Paper adumbrated the view that the consensus was for a hybrid House involving a 50 per cent. elected and a 50 per cent. appointed element. However, since both Houses rejected that option—notwithstanding my advocacy of it, or perhaps because of my advocacy of it—we will have to proceed with remodelling our work based on an 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. elected House of Lords.
	Although there is agreement on some of the areas outlined in the White Paper, there is still some way to go on some other issues. The group will discuss the outstanding elements of the reform package, including powers, electoral systems, financial packages, and the balance and size of the House, including diversity and gender issues. We will also need to discuss the transition towards a reformed House in detail, including the position of the existing life peers and the need for action to avoid gratuitously cutting Conservative party representation in the Lords when and if the remaining hereditary peers are removed.
	Let me turn to the powers of a reformed House. The Government have always said that the balance of powers between the two Houses described by the excellent and recent Cunningham report should apply to a reformed House. Those powers are currently underpinned by some statutory provisions, standing orders and conventions. We undertook to look further at whether the current conventions were adequate to ensure the desired relationship with a reformed House, following the free votes.
	Over the coming months, we will look at how best to deliver a substantially or wholly elected second Chamber, based on the principle that this House is the primary Chamber and that an elected House of Lords should complement the House of Commons and not be a rival to it. As part of that programme of work it is vital that the relative powers of a reformed House be made clear. We will therefore look at ways to enshrine in a constitutional settlement the current balance of powers and the different roles of the two Houses.
	The Government are determined to proceed with this programme of reform with a view to its completion. In dealing with such a central element of the constitution, it is right that there be as much all-party agreement as possible. I accept that there may well not be total agreement, but the constitution does not belong to any one party and it should not be used as a partisan tool.

Patrick Cormack: It does not belong to you, either.

Jack Straw: The immediate next steps are that I hope to be able to publish a further White Paper around the turn of the year setting out where we have got to in the cross-party talks—possibly accompanied by draft clauses that would form elements of the final reform Bill. Our intention through the work of the cross-party group is to formulate a comprehensive reform package that we would put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the other main parties would include in their manifestos.  [ Interruption. ] There may of course be areas on which each party takes a different view—and we have heard some of them already. However, there is the potential to reach a degree of cross-party consensus that will lead to the completion of Lords reform. The free votes in the Commons in March gave us a clear direction of travel on an issue that has dogged the country for decades. We now have a chance finally to finish the job.

Nick Herbert: I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement and for his courtesy in letting me have sight of it in advance. At the outset, may I pay tribute to his considerable efforts to move forwards on the issue of Lords reform and the way in which he is attempting to do so by consensus? It has not always been an easy journey for him and he has gracefully departed from his own preferred option of a hybrid half-elected, half-appointed Lords—or rather, that option departed from him. It is dead. In fact, it was never alive. In March, this House voted for a substantially elected second Chamber. I welcome the Lord High Chancellor to the ranks of those of us—the majority—who voted for the democratic option.
	Following the votes in March, does the Lord Chancellor remember saying on the "Today" programme:
	"There's now a momentum behind change...Members of Parliament want a wholly or predominantly elected House of Lords. It's now our duty to deliver that"?
	But how much momentum is there? Today he said that the Government are determined to complete Lords reform—but when? It seems that his new ambition is to secure a manifesto commitment for reform at the next election, but that election may not be held for another two or three years and the Labour party first had a manifesto commitment on the issue in 1992. Is not the real message in his statement that Lords reform is on ice until after the next election?

Nicholas Winterton: Quite right.

Patrick Cormack: Quite right.

Nick Herbert: There will be another White Paper and possibly draft clauses, but can the Lord Chancellor confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to deliver a substantially elected upper House in this Parliament?

Nicholas Winterton: We hope so.

Patrick Cormack: We hope so.

Nick Herbert: It is now eight years since Parliament embarked on stage 1 of reform. Does the Lord Chancellor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be very helpful if hon. Members waited for the initial statement and response to be completed before making their contributions.

Nick Herbert: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is now eight years since Parliament embarked on stage 1 of reform. Does the Lord Chancellor recall that when the Government agreed that 92 hereditary peers would remain in the House of Lords pending further reform, his predecessor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told the Lords that the retention of those peers reflected
	"a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent"?—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]
	As one of those Privy Councillors, will the Lord Chancellor confirm that he remains bound in honour, that the promise made then holds good, and that, although he repeats the Government's commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, that will not happen unless and until stage 2 of the reforms is complete?
	In 1924, Winston Churchill said:
	"if we are to leave the venerable if somewhat crumbled rock on which the House of Lords now stands, there is no safe foothold until we come to an elected chamber."
	Will the Lord Chancellor clarify the Government's stance on the Bill introduced by Lord Steel, which will be debated in the other place tomorrow? The Bill would gradually remove hereditary peers, eventually leaving an all-appointed Lords. The Lord Chancellor merely said that "the Bill does not contain the comprehensive reform that is the clear will of this House," but given that the Bill breaches Lord Irvine's undertaking and is clearly incompatible with a predominantly elected Lords, surely the Government should oppose it. If they do not, what conclusion can we draw about their seriousness in taking reform forward?
	The whole House will agree with the Lord Chancellor that the Commons must be the primary Chamber and that an elected Lords should complement the Commons and not be a rival to it, but after the Cunningham report on parliamentary conventions, the powers of the upper House are more closely defined than ever before. This House has the purse strings and the Parliament Acts, while the upper House has the power to delay. When the Lord Chancellor says that he wishes to look again at the adequacy of the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses, does he accept that maintaining the primacy of this House should not mean weakening the Lords? It should mean strengthening Parliament as a whole so that the Executive can be held properly to account.
	I welcome the Lord Chancellor's comment that the constitution does not belong to any one party and that it should not be used as a party tool. It is important that we move forward on the basis of consensus —[ Interruption. ] Does he understand the profound concern among Conservative Members about the existing White Paper's proposals for electoral systems and constituencies? An electoral system that is based on closed lists and large, artificial, multi-member constituencies would keep power in the hands of party bosses. We cannot accept the removal of the independence and authority of the present Lords unless real democratic accountability is put in its place. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that we should aim for a strong revising second Chamber with democratic legitimacy, not a House of party placemen?  [ Interruption. ]
	We want to build a second Chamber with legitimacy, authority and the ability to play a full part in holding the Executive to account. We will work constructively with the Government in their search for consensus to that end. However, the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 said:
	"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".
	Does not the Lord Chancellor's statement indicate that far from being able "finally to finish the job", as he said, we remain, nearly a century later, in precisely the same position: intending reform, but still waiting?

Jack Straw: That was all very interesting. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trying to have it both ways. One understands why he did so, given the extent of the division on the issue in his party. He did very well to get through his contribution, notwithstanding the noises directly behind him that punctuated his speech. I was reminded of the late Iain Macleod's commentary that when one is speaking from the Front Bench, while one might have the opposition in front of one, one always has the enemy behind —[ Interruption. ] On this occasion, I look behind me and see nothing but friends. One or two still need re-education, but that is another matter.
	I am glad that the Conservative party has been engaged in a process of Pauline conversion. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of why the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act said that the process would take a long time. That was due to the opposition not of the Liberal or Labour parties, but of the Conservative party. It was wonderful that in 2005—at long last—the Conservative party included a commitment on the matter in its manifesto. The Liberals and the Labour party have been promising such change since 1910, although we have had some difficulty delivering it.
	There will unquestionably be opposition from the other place, but I want us to get this through without a train wreck. We will do that if each party gives a clear manifesto commitment to going for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber with the balance of power between the two Chambers as it is described now, although not necessarily in the conventions. I believe that that will be my party's position and although this is a matter for the Liberal party, I am pretty certain that it will be its position. The question is whether that will be the Conservatives' position. Is it true, as I am told, that the Leader of the Opposition went to a meeting of Conservative Back Benchers earlier this year—he might not have done this, but it has never been denied when I have put it privately to Conservative Members—and said, to calm a rebellion, that as far as the Conservatives were concerned, if they were elected to government, Lords reform would be a "third-term issue"?

Patrick Cormack: indicated assent.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman confirms that that was said. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), as a radical in the shadow Cabinet, needs to ensure that he moves the rather backward-leaning Leader of the Opposition towards his position.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we would stick to what Lord Irvine of Lairg said in his statement on the compromise that led to the eccentric provision under which 92 hereditary peers were elected by their hereditary peers, with the process perpetuating itself through elections involving those peers. In the end, that is a matter for the House. Let me remind him that Division No. 71 in this Session took place on an amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to a motion that I moved. My motion stated:
	"That this House is of the opinion that the remaining retained places for peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed",
	and the amendment would have added the words
	"once elected members have taken their places in a reformed House of Lords."
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was one of the 241 Members who voted for the amendment—I happened to vote against it.
	After the amendment had been knocked out, there was a Division on the main Question:
	"That this House is of the opinion that the remaining retained places for peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed"—
	full stop, without any qualification. The whole issue was whether the House supported Lord Irvine of Lairg's position. Guess what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten what happened, but surprisingly, I cannot find his name anywhere in the list of Members who voted No. However, one of the 391 Members who voted in the Aye Lobby was "Herbert, Nick". It might be that someone else of that name managed to secrete themselves in the Lobby, but I think that it was the hon. Gentleman. He supported the decision that was agreed by a majority of 280, that the hereditary peers should be removed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the adequacy of the conventions and the maintenance of the primacy of this House. I do not think that there is a huge division among the parties on that. My speeches on 6 March and 7 March made it clear that I accept the principle that the question of powers is not a zero-sum game. There is not a quantum of power in the building that can exist only at one end or the other. Throughout my period in the House, I have been committed to making Parliament more effective. I accept that that involves making it more effective at both ends of the building, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that the workings of the Government and Parliament would become impossible if one House did not have primacy. Perhaps he wants to go down the route of bicameral parliaments that just achieve deadlock, but he should consider the fact that some European countries cannot be governed because there is no clarity about which chamber has power.
	We do not disagree with the description set out in Cunningham 2 of the balance of powers of the two Chambers. I hope that the totality of power of both Chambers together will grow. However, we take issue with whether the conventions are adequate, and Lord Wakeham supports us in that respect.
	My last point—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I always try to give full answers, especially when I am involved in a pedagogical process. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Parliament Act 1911. This has taken a long time, but I hope that he recognises that we have made considerable progress. If the Conservative party makes a commitment in its manifesto, we certainly can, in the first couple of years of the next Parliament, complete this job.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that this is a statement, not a debate? If possible, may we have brief questions and, if the Secretary of State would not mind, brief answers?

Tony Wright: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not mind if I say that the implication of his statement is that comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not an immediate prospect. I hope that he will not set his face against a more limited reform measure that would put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, separate the honours system from service in the second Chamber, and give the House of Lords the ability to remove people who bring dishonour on it.

Jack Straw: I have two quick answers. First, to get to where we want to go, we have to make clear progress, but in the absence of categorical manifesto commitments from the three parties, we would simply find ourselves bogged down in endless debate on the Floor of the House before the next election. I want to make clear progress, so that in the first Session of the next Parliament, we can introduce a final measure. Secondly, on a limited reform measure—that takes us back to Lord Steel's proposal—let us see what the House of Lords says about it. One thing has to be clear: such a reform cannot be an alternative to the major reform to which the House is now committed.

Simon Hughes: The Lord Chancellor knows that we welcome his statement, his continuing interest and commitment to the subject, and his willingness to change his position to accommodate the views of the majority in all parties. He knows that the Liberal Democrats have said yes to cross-party talks, to seeking maximum agreement between the parties, to making sure that the Commons is the primary Chamber, and to making sure that we get on with the process.
	If the right hon. Gentleman is really committed—and if the new Prime Minister is really committed, as last week's announcement suggested—to a major new constitutional settlement, in which there is a properly democratic bicameral Parliament, and in which the Executive return more powers to Parliament, would it not be logical to get on with the process, rather than slow it down? That way, the Government can be seen to deliver on a final transformation of the House of Lords into a proper democratic Chamber within 100 years of the original commitment. Otherwise, we will delay the decision for another Parliament, and goodness knows what the result will be, what the balance of Parliament will be, and who will be sitting in his position and taking an interest in the subject.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect again on the fact that if there is no White Paper until the turn of the year, realistically, it will mean legislation in 2008 or 2009 at the earliest? We read reports that there might be a general election before then, and that would obviously put the process in jeopardy. Does he agree absolutely that it would not be acceptable to replace the House of Lords, whether appointed or hereditary, with a second Chamber in which the parties, rather than the people, choose who represents them?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats' categorical and full-hearted support; we have not heard from them any of the cavilling that we sometimes hear from Conservative Front Benchers. The issue is really one of haste and speed. If we are too hasty, the matter will fall, and I want it to reach fulfilment. I am clear that we can get there, but there are many big issues that we have yet to determine. If that is not done, we will simply end up having hours and hours of debate on the Floor of the House without reaching conclusions, including on the electoral systems. I should just say to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—I am sorry that I did not answer this question earlier—that I am, of course, ready to look again at the whole issue of electoral systems.

Gordon Prentice: We have a convicted fraudster, Conrad Black, and a tax exile, Lord Laidlaw, in the House of Lords. Surely we should take early action to rid the House of Lords of people like that, rather than wait until a comprehensive Bill is introduced after the next election.

Jack Straw: I agree with that, but the difficulty in introducing a limited measure is that reform that is not properly thought through can be added to it. If there are other ways of achieving my hon. Friend's aim, so much the better.

George Young: Does the Lord Chancellor agree that constitutional reform has not been one of his Government's greatest triumphs? Will he concede, and take some comfort from the fact, that of those Conservative MPs who voted when votes were last held on the issue, a majority voted for one of the elected options, and a majority voted against a wholly appointed House? Will he give an undertaking that by the end of this Parliament, a draft Bill will be ready, which can be introduced in the next Parliament?

Jack Straw: We have made rather more progress on reform of the Lords than any previous Administration, including those of which the right hon. Gentleman was an adornment. On the issue of a draft Bill, we are certainly aiming to produce draft clauses. Whether we can get to a full draft Bill depends on the extent to which we can agree an overall settlement in the cross-party talks, but I hope that we can reach such a settlement.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend is hardly in a position to criticise the Leader of the Opposition for making House of Lords reform a third-term issue, given that, under our Government, it has become a fourth-term issue. Does he agree that the Bill that will come before the House of Lords tomorrow largely satisfies the commitments made in the Labour party's manifesto for the last election, and will he confirm that the Government will support the Bill? Will he also confirm that although the House voted for a wholly elected second Chamber, it was not clear what form the elections would take, who would qualify to stand for election, or who the electorate would be?

Jack Straw: I cannot confirm my hon. Friend's statement. We said that there would be free votes on the issues, and there have been free votes; the House has spoken. I know that he disagrees with its decision, but the majorities in favour of 100 per cent. and 80 per cent. elected were overwhelming.

Patrick Cormack: Would the Lord High Chancellor, as we must get used to calling him, accept that that majority in favour of 100 per cent. elected was largely engineered by the tactical voting of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who took his troops into the Aye Lobby although they were really not in favour of the proposal? Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that in every Division, more Conservative Members voted against 80 per cent. elected and 20 per cent. appointed than for? Similarly, more voted against 100 per cent. elected than for. Does he accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is newly appointed to the Front Bench, does not speak for the majority of the parliamentary Conservative party, and that the Lord Chancellor will have a real fight on his hands if he tries to destroy the current constitution, as he is seeking to do?

Jack Straw: I am not seeking to destroy the constitution—of course not. I am seeking to make considerable progress on the issue on a consensual basis, and I am trying to nail down some very difficult details before we bring forward a Bill, because that is the only way that we will get a satisfactory and pretty permanent settlement. As for the votes, I always work on the basis that when hon. Members choose which Division Lobby to go through, they know the consequences, and those who voted in favour of 80 or 100 per cent. elected knew what the consequences would be.

Geraldine Smith: No one should have a job for life without accountability, and it is right that we should have a wholly or substantially elected House of Lords, but does my right hon. Friend agree that success will depend on what form the elections take? I do not want party managers dominating the election process, or closed lists. I would like organisations to have the chance, perhaps indirectly, to elect Members of the House of Lords, because it is important that we retain the expertise and experience in the House of Lords, as well as its independence.

Jack Straw: First, I look forward to discussing my hon. Friend's proposals in detail. Secondly, I am against closed lists for the elections. There is a debate to be held about the election systems used. Let me make it clear that I am not in favour of closed lists of the kind used in European elections for elections to the House of Lords.

Douglas Hogg: I would be grateful if the Secretary of State stopped using the phrase "primacy of the House of Commons". What he actually means is the primacy of the Executive. So long as the Government can retain control over their party, they can do as they please. We need Back-Bench Members of this House to reassert their independence, to recover the powers that the Executive have stolen from us, and to free ourselves from the tyranny of the Whips. That is what we need to do.

Jack Straw: I do not remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that when he was a Minister.

George Young: He was a Whip!

Jack Straw: I know—and a bad Whip, too. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that when we have a strong Executive, as we do, our constitution can work only if there is a strong House of Commons and a strong Parliament. I support that, but if there is to be a Government, one House has to have primacy. The decision to accept the primacy of the House of Commons was not made by the Government. It was made by the House of Commons in a free vote when we set up the terms of reference of the Cunningham 2 Committee on 10 May last year.

Andy Reed: I enjoyed the first part of the statement about trying to build consensus across the House, but having listened to the contributions of Opposition Members, I am not sure that we will achieve that in time for the 2009 manifesto. Although my right hon. Friend has so far resisted the call to bring forward some of the measures, will he consider bringing some of them forward—for example, the role of the bishops in the House of Lords? They could be removed, along with hereditary peers, as quickly as possible, as part of our disestablishment of the Church of England.

Jack Straw: Oh goody. Then we would really have a consensus. It is preferable that we proceed as I suggest, otherwise we will end up with deadlock, which is where we have ended up before.

Richard Taylor: With a wholly elected second Chamber, how is the significant and valuable proportion of independent Members to be maintained?

Jack Straw: By definition, that cannot be maintained as it is at present. That is why I voted for 80 per cent., as well as the perfectly formed but unsupportable 50 per cent.

Graham Allen: I strongly welcome the statement from the Secretary of State for Justice. Will he stick immovably to the democratic principle that those who exercise political power in a democracy must be elected? Those who vote must be elected. That, of course, allows some elbow room for my right hon. Friend to ensure that those who do not vote in a second Chamber—those who therefore do not exercise political power—may find a place, whether they are existing or future Members of such a House.

Jack Straw: The primary Chamber must be wholly elected. We will continue to have a debate about whether the second Chamber should be wholly or substantially elected.

David Howarth: Will the Secretary of State resist the siren calls for piecemeal reform, even though the individual ideas might be quite good? That threatens the programme itself. The important thing at this stage is to get on with the comprehensive reform as quickly as possible. In that regard, I add my voice to those who are disappointed that what he has announced today means that there is no possibility of an early election to the House of Lords. Does he envisage the possibility of an election to the House of Lords within the term of the next Parliament, not having to wait till the following general election?

Jack Straw: The more progress we can make on the all-party talks beforehand, and the more we can deal with the devil in the detail, the more likely it is that we could get the reform through in the first Session of a new Parliament, without running into overwhelming objections by the other place, which acknowledges the primacy of this Chamber. If that were the case, elections to the other Chamber could certainly take place during that Parliament.

Martin Salter: I welcome the parts of the Lord Chancellor's statement that move us further down the democratic path, as many hon. Members have sought during their time in this place. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has comprehensively buried the doomed and somewhat arrogant contention that our democracy will be better served by a unicameral system, with no revising Chamber at all?

Jack Straw: I have never supported that and the House buried it by an overwhelming vote. It was the very first vote, No. 65, on 7 March.

Robert Key: Given the recent decision of the Government to confirm the Church of England as the established Church, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there will always be enough bishops in the Church of England to work the system properly?

Chris Bryant: Including women.

Robert Key: Of course that includes women bishops. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to examine the legislative relationship between the Church of England and Parliament, which is archaic and is effectively governed through the Ecclesiastical Committee with a precursor pre-legislative stage of legislation? Will he revise that system to bring it more into line with 21st century practice?

Jack Straw: I declare an interest, as I am also a communicating member of the Church of England and believe in the established Church, but that view is not wholly shared in all parts of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On the second point, I personally want to see a significant representation of the Lords Spiritual in the second Chamber. We must be very careful before we discuss Church of England reform in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman may recall—not from his own memory, but from the history books—that the 1874 Session of Parliament was dominated from one end to the other by discussions of Church of England reform. I do not want to go down as the Lord Chancellor with that legacy.

Kelvin Hopkins: Both Houses have clearly expressed a view about what we should do about Lords reform, but the electorate has not yet expressed a view specifically. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in those votes 155 Labour Members voted for a unicameral Parliament. That may represent a much larger proportion of voters outside the Chamber, and they should be given the choice in a referendum as to whether they want a second Chamber in the future. I remind my right hon. Friend that a number of Parliaments have abolished their second Chamber, and many successful democracies have single Houses.

Jack Straw: As we set out in the White Paper, there are very few countries of our size that have unicameral Chambers. I strongly believe that a unicameral Chamber would lead to more power going to the Executive and less power to elected people in this Chamber, as well as the other place.

Michael Fallon: Will the Secretary of State explain a little more clearly how, in a unitary rather than a federal state, there can be two competing sources of electoral authority?

Jack Straw: Of course there can be. There are plenty of unitary states that have two Chambers, but if the hon. Gentleman takes a different view about an elected second Chamber, that is his opinion, but it is currently not shared by a majority of the House.

Chris Bryant: As one who supports a democratic second Chamber, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has retained responsibility for the subject, not least because I remember the days when he was in favour of a 0 per cent. elected element in the second Chamber. He was then in favour of 50 per cent. and now 80 per cent., so we have got him from 0 to 80 per cent. in just five years. There is an important principle by which the House of Lords has always abided until now. If there is a clear manifesto commitment by a governing party that it will implement, the Lords will not stand in the way. Is that not why it is extremely important that Labour's manifesto, as the party that will win the next general election, is unambiguous on the matter?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for complimenting my ability to listen to arguments. I have shifted on the matter; I am perfectly willing to say that. On the second point, I agree that we need a clear manifesto commitment, then we can get the measure through.

Pete Wishart: May I remind the Lord Chancellor that there are more than three political parties in the House. He gave an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that we would play a meaningful part in the cross-party discussions. I remind the hon. Gentleman also that it was the Scottish national party and Plaid Cymru that destroyed the credible case for appointment by pursuing cash for honours in the way that we did. Can he assure me that the cross-party talks will indeed be cross-party?

Jack Straw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. We are suggesting that the key cross-party group should be the three parties, but I promise him that there will be—we should have made previous arrangements—discussions with his party, Plaid Cymru and other smaller parties in the House. I am sorry about that. As for the other point, the debate about whether there should be an elected element is nothing whatever to do with that which he mentions.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am fully signed up to these LPs and senators—a very good idea. Will the—what is my right hon. Friend called now?

Jack Straw: Secretary of State.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the idea of Ministers in either House being able to appear in either House, especially once there are elections down at the other end of the Corridor? It is ridiculous that Lords in Waiting—I do not say this in any disparaging way—are parrots who just read from a brief. It would be much better if the Minister who was the architect of a piece of legislation piloted it through both Houses. There are plenty of precedents for that in Westminster-style constitutions. I hope that that will be looked at.

Jack Straw: We will certainly look at that, although I am not certain that I will end up in the same place as my hon. Friend.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am going to heaven.

Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the question from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us in the House believe that people want to destroy the current House of Lords because it is too successful? It represents the best interests of the people of this country and although it is not democratic, it was never set up to be democratic. It is there because of its experience and expertise, and we should appreciate the role that it has played.

Jack Straw: It was set up precisely not to be democratic and resisted all democratic change throughout the process of change, particularly in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. I applaud the role of the House of Lords, which has actually been strengthened as a result of the changes that we introduced in the first Parliament of this Administration. As I said to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), I have never believed that there is a quantum of power that is fixed within this Palace. We have a strong Executive in this country—I believe that that produces benefits—but a strong Executive requires there to be a strong Parliament. That does not mean, however, that we freeze forever the particular constitution of the other place.

William Cash: The Lord High Chancellor made great play of giving more power to the people, as did the White Paper on governance. I speak as one who is in favour of an elected House of Lords. Does he agree that it is essential to ensure that there is no proportional representation in the voting system—not merely not a closed list but none at all—and that, to enhance the reputation of the House of Lords, serious consideration should be given to it conducting its business without whipping? I follow what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about this. It is very important that it should have that degree of independence.

Jack Straw: That would ultimately be a matter for the other place. If the hon. Gentleman aspires to have a Government whom he can support, which may be an impossibility in his case, he will recognise the case for whipping at both ends of the Corridor. As for proportional representation, there will be a debate about that. Although I am passionately in favour of single member constituencies for this place, I recognise that there is a case for multi-member constituencies for the other place. We have to work through this.

John Bercow: I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a tough cookie. May I tell him, for the avoidance of doubt, that he should not be intimidated or slowed down in any way by the reactionary, antediluvian, troglodyte forces in all parties who oppose reform, that the arguments for democracy remain strong, and that he should proceed with a Bill sooner rather later?

Jack Straw: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support.

Peter Bone: The Lord High Chancellor has a great opportunity to strengthen Parliament and weaken the power of the Executive. Will he assure the House that the constitutional settlement to which he refers will be agreed before there are any changes to the system for election or appointment to the House of Lords?

Jack Straw: The one is part of the other.  [ Interruptio n. ] I am sorry, but that is simply the case. We are seeking to produce a comprehensive package of reforms that will lead to a new composition of the second Chamber.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that if Lord Malloch-Brown and Lord West of Spithead had had to stand for election, neither would have been able to achieve the experience at the United Nations or as Chief of Defence Intelligence which precisely fits them so well to be part of a revising Chamber and, indeed, Ministers in his Government? Is it not the case that if the 100 per cent. proposal—the one with the support of this House—goes through, there will be no prospect of such people getting into the other House, and that if the 80 per cent. proposal goes through, the people with the experience will not have the democratic mandate and the people with the democratic mandate will not have the experience?

Jack Straw: That is pretty insulting as regards the kind of people who will be attracted to a second Chamber. I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of the troglodytes on the Conservative Benches. I acknowledge that there is a case for an appointed element. That is why I supported a 50 per cent. appointed element and then, when that failed catastrophically, went for an 80 per cent. elected element with a 20 per cent. appointed element. There will be much to be said on this on all sides until we finally reach agreement.

Crime Reduction

Jacqui Smith: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's new crime strategy. The strategy sets out the overarching principles, the context and the framework for tackling crime over the next three years.
	Over the past 10 years, we have revolutionised the crime fighting landscape. We have provided record levels of funding, created new powers and partnerships, and set targets. With those working on the front line, we now have a better understanding of who commits crime, under what circumstances, and how and when to stop it. This formidable combination has seen crime fall by around a third since 1997. Car crime has halved, meaning over 1.8 million fewer incidents. On average, the chances of becoming a victim of burglary are roughly now once every 40 years, compared with every 25 years a decade ago. Staffing levels across the police service are at a record high, at more than 223,000 people, and the chances of becoming a victim of crime remain at historically low levels. Those are real achievements that make a difference to people's everyday lives. I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of dedicated people on the front line, who, through their ambition and dedication, are working day in, day out to make our neighbourhoods safer, and to thank them all for the real difference they have made in communities across the country.
	As today's crime statistics show, we are holding to the improvements in the falls in crime, but we must go further. Now is the time to reinvigorate our efforts to ensure that we continue to make strong and sustainable reductions in crime. That is what the public expect; and as the nature of crime evolves, so must our approach. We all have a part to play in tackling crime, and now is the time for us to update and strengthen the terms of our partnership. We will refocus the work of central Government, concentrating on where we can make the most impact, particularly on areas where policy and delivery are newer and need national energy. I will lead a drive to join up Whitehall, bringing Departments together under a new national crime reduction board to lead, support and, where necessary, to challenge local delivery. At neighbourhood level, by April 2008 there will be a neighbourhood policing team in every community in England and Wales.
	Crime cannot be tackled by police alone. It is now nearly 10 years since we established crime and disorder reduction partnerships to lead delivery of crime reduction at the local level, and much has been achieved by that partnership working. We now need a step change in the way that partnerships operate so that they can effectively respond to the spectrum of crime from the everyday to the extraordinary—from graffiti at the bus stop to terrorism. The reform programme that is under way will ensure that step change. New standards for crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be in place later this year. The new standards for community engagement will mean listening and acting on the concerns of local communities. Standards for performance will mean that partnerships are appropriately supported and challenged as necessary. We will measure how confident the public are in the agencies that collectively deal with crime and disorder problems at local level. Building on the work of Professor Adrian Smith's review of crime statistics, published today, we will ensure that people have better access to local statistics. Working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, we will ensure that by July next year, everyone will be able to have access to meaningful local crime information updated every month so that they can see how their priorities are being tackled.
	The crime strategy will also focus on how we can intervene earlier to reduce crime and its effects, particularly with young people. Young people are frequently victims of crime. That is why I want to hear directly from them about their fears about crime and disorder and what we should be doing to help them to feel safe in their communities. In the autumn, the Youth Parliament will hold a special session so that I can hear at first hand what young people think would make a real difference here. I want to build on the positive links between schools and police already established through safer schools partnerships and to ensure that working with young people is a core part of neighbourhood policing in every neighbourhood.
	In order to turn new technology to our advantage, we will lead a greater drive on designing out crime so that the iPhones and satnavs of the future are worthless to thieves. I am immensely grateful to Sebastian Conran, John Sorrell and the others who are coming forward to build a new design and technology alliance of people with a range of expertise to champion this approach. In our new partnership, we want partners in the voluntary sector to take a leading role in fighting crime, and in designing national and local initiatives.
	As hon. Members know, antisocial behaviour remains a key local concern. Today's statistics show that we have kept antisocial behaviour under control. The proportion of people who believe such behaviour to be a big problem in their area is down to 18 per cent. from a peak of 21 per cent. in 2002-03. Over the past 10 years, we have put in place a range of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour—from informal acceptable behaviour contracts to more formal antisocial behaviour orders and crack house closure powers. We want crime and disorder reduction partnerships throughout the country to use the full range of tools and powers they have at their disposal to tackle problems that matter to local people.
	Finally, I want to talk about violent crime, such as murder, gun and knife crime, domestic violence and sexual offending, which has the highest and most devastating impact on individuals and communities. We are seeing signs of real progress here and today's statistics are positive—overall violence is down 31 per cent. since 1997—but we know that we must do more. We will ensure that we work more closely with our delivery partners to prevent violence occurring in the first place by addressing the drivers of violence such as drugs and alcohol. When violence does occur, we will be robust in the prosecuting and managing of offenders, and we will support victims to reduce the harm of violence. We must look for innovative solutions to difficult and challenging issues, including knife crime.
	Under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, those who carry knives face a maximum of four years' imprisonment—double the previous maximum. We have also created powers for school staff to search pupils for weapons. However, we must recognise the work of the voluntary sector, and work with it to maximise our impact, which is why the Home Office is funding the excellent work of the Damilola Taylor Trust. It is aiming to sign up half the 11 to 16-year-olds in the country to its "Respect Your Life Not a Knife" pledge campaign.
	We have proved that when you tackle unemployment and drug and alcohol misuse, crime comes down. When schools and health services, local authorities, police and neighbours work together, crime comes down. When you are not afraid to make tough choices about enforcing standards of behaviour, crime comes down. Together, we can continue to drive down crime levels. This new crime strategy sets out what we need to do to refresh our approach and I commend it to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement.
	For 10 years, the Government have been trying to claim that crime is coming down. Unfortunately for the Government, the public obstinately insist on believing their own experience rather than ministerial claims and simply know that crime is going up, and all the fiddled figures in the world will not change their minds. The central contention of the Home Secretary's statement today is based on flawed data. The Home Secretary repeats the mantra that crime has fallen, based on the British crime survey, but the BCS ignores the most serious crimes, such as murders. Despite the Home Secretary's comments, for many years, it ignored crimes against children, and it ignores a total of at least 18 million crimes. How can the Home Secretary tackle crime, when she cannot even count it properly?
	However, let me start by welcoming some aspects of the Home Secretary's announcements, where she has adopted Conservative policy. We have been calling for years for direct, local accountability of police forces. She announced a small step in that direction. I congratulate her on that small step, and hope that we will see more. We have been calling for years for local crime data to inform that local accountability. Again, she has announced a small step in that direction, and I congratulate her on that. For the past three years, I have been calling for an initiative on designing out crime, so I particularly congratulate her on that.
	Some crimes are going down, but the evidence is that this has little to do with the Government, and according to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, it has nothing to do with Government spending. The Government must take responsibility for overall recorded crime going up by 300,000, and more importantly, for the most serious crimes going up sharply. Recorded violent crime has doubled. This morning on television the Home Secretary said that drug crime is down. I just do not know where that idea came from—perhaps from the same advisers who told her predecessors to declassify cannabis. Drug offences have increased by about 50 per cent. during the term of this Government, and by 9 per cent. this year, and that figure is increasing faster every year because of the confused and contradictory signals they have sent out.
	The Government should not go in for self-deception. Let us look at the news of the last 48 hours. The Government said that 24-hour drinking would convert binge drinkers to a café-style culture. The doctors say that alcohol-related assaults have doubled in one year. The Government claimed an increase in the number of offenders brought to justice. The Home Affairs Committee says that nearly half of those offenders receive just a slap on the wrist and that they should not be counted.
	The Government say that crime is down by a third. The Home Secretary might take time to read some of the documents produced by the people who work for her—in this case, the police. I quote Detective Constable Marsh, who said:
	"At conference John Reid congratulated us for reducing crime. I have been in CID virtually all my service and crime has not reduced. It is out of control."
	Should people believe the Government, or doctors, the Home Affairs Committee and the police? If the Home Secretary thinks that the Government's strategy has been such a success, can she answer some questions for me? First, why has violent crime doubled, knife crime doubled and gun crime doubled? Secondly, can she explain why only three in every 100 crimes are ever brought to justice—even under her Government's figures? Thirdly, can she explain why she considers the drugs policy a success when 80 per cent. of addicts abandon drug treatment orders before they are completed? Fourthly, can she tell us when policemen will spend more time on patrol than on paperwork?
	I have to tell the Home Secretary that very few members of the public think that the Government's crime policy is a success. If she thinks it a success, heaven help the country when she thinks it a failure.

Jacqui Smith: Well, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for quite a few elements of my statement. He is absolutely right about local crime statistics; they are an important way in which we can support local people to engage in partnerships that will help to bring down crime.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. First, on drug-related crime, I have made it clear, as today's statistics show, that crime most closely related to drug harm—acquisitive crime—has fallen by 20 per cent. since we introduced drug treatment and testing in prisons. Although there has been an increase in drug offences in the most recent figures, that is largely due to the more proactive approach taken by the police, particularly through the use of cannabis warnings. Young people's use of class A drugs has held stable and their use of cannabis and other drugs has reduced due to the Government's approach.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a point about licensing. Basing such a sweeping statement on a report from one hospital is unfortunate. Research we have published today shows a 25 per cent. reduction in violent crime in relation to those licensing hours. As I outlined in my statement, we have already taken action on knife crime. It is only since April this year, when my predecessor as Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), introduced the reporting of offences involving a blade, that we have been able to track such crimes, but we are serious about it, and I spelt out how we shall do it.
	On ensuring that the police are able to focus on their work; first, this Government's investment has meant that more police officers, and 16,000 police community support officers, are on patrol and working. It is because we take seriously the matter of focusing their attention on the streets that we have asked Sir Ronnie Flanagan, the chief inspector of police, to carry out a review that looks at how we can reduce bureaucracy.
	The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on being a tough man in tackling crime—no hoodie-hugging for him. As we have seen too often, when the Opposition are put to the test, they talk tough but vote soft. They voted to water down antisocial behaviour orders, and voted against tougher sentences for murder and sexual and violent offences and against police powers to tackle organised crime. Talk is cheap, which is just as well because it is all that the shadow Chancellor would be willing to fund. Until the right hon. Gentleman can put some backbone into his leader and some economic sense into the shadow Chancellor, his words will ring hollow.

Michael Jabez Foster: May I applaud my right hon. Friend for the importance that she places on local crime reduction partnerships, such as the exemplary safer Hastings partnership, which has led to massive reductions in crime in Hastings? Seventy per cent. of the people even believe that there has been a reduction. I suppose that that is dreadful because 100 per cent. should believe it.
	Recently, before my right hon. Friend took up her office, her predecessor vired specific funds from crime reduction partnerships to terrorism and prisons. Will she reconsider that decision and ascertain whether we can put that cash back?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that very good work goes on in our crime reduction partnerships and I know that he has raised the matter with my hon. Friend—soon to be right hon. Friend—the Minister of State, Home Department, the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty).
	Despite the increased investment that the Government have found for funding local area agreements—where crime and disorder partnerships sit—and for increased police staff, there will always be tough decisions to make. Given the context of specific protection challenges, especially in counter-terrorism, it was necessary to make a decision this financial year about a small part of the funding for crime reduction partnerships. It will not be possible to put that right this year, but I will consider a range of ways in which we can support the good work of those partnerships in future.

Nicholas Clegg: I am obviously grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement. She was quick in its early stages to take credit for the reduction in some categories of non-violent crime. Has she read the report of the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which confirms that a full 80 per cent. in those reductions have nothing to do with the Government's law and order policies?
	Does the Home Secretary also accept that, if one genuinely wants a strategy to deal with not only crime but the public fear of crime, far from the thin gruel of the statement, she needs to abandon the mix of legislative hyperactivity, policy populism and addiction to mass incarceration, which has the disfigured the Government's approach to law and order for too long? Does she also agree that, for the strategy to be credible, she needs to show how she will deliver on her pledges? How are we to believe that neighbourhood police teams will be rolled out by April 2008 and be sustainable beyond that, when the Government cut by a third the number of promised community support officers? Local authorities throughout the country do not yet know whether they will have to pick up the bill.
	Will the Home Secretary explain why the statement is silent on the urgent need to involve victims and communities in the administration of justice? Does she agree that she should work with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to roll out aggressively the excellent community justice panels, which were pioneered in Somerset and elsewhere and give offenders the opportunity to explain themselves to victims and communities?
	Will the Home Secretary also explain why the statement is silent about one of the biggest crises in our criminal justice system—the epidemic of reoffending? A full 92 per cent. of young men who go to prison for short-term sentences reoffend in a matter of weeks and months of release.
	Does the Home Secretary agree that it is time to tackle the Government's addiction to so-called summary justice? It is a pay-as-you-go approach to justice, which includes the roll-out of penalties and the over-use of cautions and fixed penalty notices, and has done much to damage public confidence and contribute to lamentable conviction rates. The Home Affairs Committee's report today confirmed that now only three out of every 100 crimes lead to a conviction in court.
	At first glance, the statement is not a strategy but a rag-bag of unrelated, minor media initiatives, which ignore the fundamental failure in the Government's relentless and shameless populist approach to law and order.

Jacqui Smith: I think that I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I was not quite clear about his first point and I do not think he was, either. Perhaps he was making the case that reductions in crime do not depend solely on investment in law and order and policing, but—dare I say it—on tackling some of the causes of crime. If that was his point, I strongly agree with him. It was precisely the point that I made in the statement. Increased investment in police and tough sentencing when necessary are a crucial part of reducing crime but they are not enough. Tackling unemployment, reducing the harm from drug and alcohol use, ensuring better education and early intervention are also important in reducing crime. They are part of the reason for the reduction in crime that has occurred in the past 10 years.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise the important role of neighbourhood policing teams. I have been fortunate in the past fortnight to see their work on two separate occasions, and, even more important, to talk to local people, who now see what their police officers are doing and feel able to talk to them and work with them to solve problems in their communities. It is important that those neighbourhood teams are in place by next April and embedded in our system. We have asked Sir Ronnie Flanagan to advise us on that, too. We are serious about the contribution of neighbourhood policing and that is why we have taken it forward.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about involving victims in justice. We have undertaken, and will continue with, that work with the Ministry of Justice. On the subject of his throwaway approach to the range of penalties on offer, I believe that it is a good idea, if possible, to intervene earlier with fixed penalty notices and other forms of punishment and warning at the point when, for example, we can prevent violence from escalating. It is good to have a range of tools at the disposal of those who are responsible for keeping order on our streets. Of course we will keep their use under review, but on the whole, those new initiatives and ways of tackling crime have been successful in the past 10 years, notwithstanding the fact that on almost every occasion, the hon. Gentleman and his party voted against them.

David Wright: I welcome the fall in crime in West Mercia. That is a tribute to the hard work of the police force in my area of Telford. Will my right hon. Friend consider the scale of the house-building programme in the UK? We need more police architectural liaison officers so that we can do more to design out crime in local neighbourhoods. If such a large expansion in housing is going to occur, we need to beef up the team in West Mercia, and throughout the country.

Jacqui Smith: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the good work that happens in the West Mercia police area. My part of that area is one of the early developers of some of the neighbourhood policing that it is so important to spread throughout the country. My hon. Friend is right to identify the challenge and the opportunity that increased house building presents. That is why, in the design and technology alliance, we have emphasised working with, for example, John Sorrell from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. We can thus consider how we develop more housing in a way that builds out crime. For example, there is a housing estate in Bradford where a redesign of the way in which the housing operated led to an 80 per cent. reduction in burglary. It is a fruitful subject, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we can do more.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is sincere in her expectation that crime will fall in the coming months, but how does that square with the possibility of losing many thousands of police community support officers after April? Will she give hon. Members some assurance about the future funding of that important component of neighbourhood policing?

Jacqui Smith: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are going to lose PCSOs. There are now 16,000 of them supporting the important work of police officers in neighbourhoods. That is an important development in the crime-fighting family in the past few years.  [Interruption.] As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) points out, such provision did not exist 10 years ago, when crime reduction started. It is an important development, and we are committed to continuing with it.

Ann Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I entirely agree that the publication of local monthly crime statistics is important in proving local police accountability. It is important too, however, that social landlords such as Stockport Homes publish monthly statistics on the actions that they have taken against antisocial tenants, which would improve their accountability to other tenants. Will my right hon. Friend encourage local crime and disorder partnerships to ask their social landlords to publish such statistics?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and identifies what I described in my statement as the whole range of partners whom we need to engage in cutting crime. Local accountability for crime statistics and the other forms of local accountability that she identifies, especially housing, are important.

Philip Hollobone: May I invite the Home Secretary to a night out in Kettering? We could spend the night together with the local constabulary chasing the 260 persistent and prolific offenders in Northamptonshire who commit £7 million-worth of crime each year. Residents of Kettering want those people locked up in jail, serving their time in full. How will the Home Secretary prioritise the police to catch, and the courts to convict and lock up, the people who commit the bulk of the crime in this country?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend—sorry, I mean the hon. Gentleman; we are not friends yet, although we might be after our night out in Kettering.  [ Interruption. ] Some of my colleagues want to check whether the hon. Gentleman was offering to pay.
	The hon. Gentleman's serious point is about not only how the police catch those who commit criminal acts, but how the latter are taken through the courts and convicted. There has been an increase of nearly 40 per cent. in criminal convictions over the past 10 years, as well as a reduction in crime. Considerable progress has been made, but the hon. Gentleman is right: we need the whole approach, from prevention and early intervention to catching criminals and ensuring that we deal with offenders properly, to bring down crime as we have done.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and Northamptonshire police's improved performance, which has benefited the local community. However, one of the continuing problems in tackling antisocial behaviour is the weak housing and estate management of the local authority—now Liberal Democrat controlled. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that all partners pull their weight in partnership working, so that the police do not have to pick up the problems created by other agencies?

Jacqui Smith: I join my hon. Friend in praising the improvements of Northants police. She raises an important point about the responsibility of the police's partners. We want to change the performance management arrangements—so that we measure not only the work of the police, but that of all the partners engaged in the crime reduction partnership in solving crime locally—precisely to identify that responsibility across agencies, which involves not only the police but local authorities, housing management, health services, education and others who contribute. That might make a contribution—and as for the problem of having a Liberal Democrat council, I am sure that my hon. Friend is working hard to put that right.

Mark Pritchard: Given that the British crime survey does not include crimes against those under 16, those who own commercial property or those who live in shared accommodation—nurses, students and the elderly—will the Home Secretary assure the House, and my constituents who have been affected by crime, that the new monthly figures will include those victims?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right about the British crime survey. We have today published not only the statistics in the British crime survey, but the recorded crime statistics. We must work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, in the way I have described, to develop local crime information. The hon. Gentleman correctly says that the information needs to be broad, to cover all the concerns of local people, and to be comparable between districts.

Anne Snelgrove: I welcome in particular my right hon. Friend's comments about building safer schools partnerships and involving young people in neighbourhood policing teams. May I inform her of the success of the Broadgreen pilot neighbourhood policing scheme in my constituency? Its local knowledge of young people helped it to damp down some difficult racial and social tensions earlier this year. Will she give some comfort to three secondary schools, St. Joseph's, Churchfields and The Ridgeway, which are working in partnership but are finding it difficult to secure funding to combat the menace of gang culture?

Jacqui Smith: I join my hon. Friend in praising the Broadgreen neighbourhood policing team. The work to damp down, as she described it, trouble before it becomes more serious is a key part of neighbourhood policing. I cannot promise her money today, but I can say that schools working together, particularly on the initiatives that she described, are part not only of the work that we in the Home Office are doing, but of the work to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is committed. I will certainly look at the scheme that my hon. Friend mentions, to see whether some of the money that we are already making available for supporting ways of reducing gang crime, particularly through the voluntary sector, might be relevant.

John Redwood: The current clear-up rate is three crimes in 100. What would be a satisfactory clear-up rate?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong; we do not recognise that figure. In fact, as I have already pointed out, convictions have increased by 40 per cent. since 1997, and at the same time there has been a reduction in crimes overall and a reduction in the chances of becoming a victim of crime. There have been more convictions, as a proportion of a smaller amount of crime, and I think that that is a success.

Charlotte Atkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the continuing excellent work of Staffordshire police. Does she recognise and understand that, despite falling levels of crime, my constituents in market towns such as Leek and Biddulph feel that their communities do not receive the attention that they deserve, because they are not seen as crime hot spots? Will she explain how the new neighbourhood approach could help those communities get their fair share of policing?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to praise the work of Staffordshire police. We believe that neighbourhood policing teams need to be made available in every community, including in those that she mentioned, precisely because they can contribute to reducing crime, working in partnership with local people. There might be different challenges in areas such as Leek and others that she mentioned. Nevertheless, community safety and feeling safe in their homes are a crucial part of her constituents' concerns, which the delivery of neighbourhood policing in every community will help to address.

John Baron: The Home Secretary will not be surprised to learn that my constituents are fed up with rising violent crime, antisocial behaviour and low detection rates. The Government should not hide behind the British crime survey figures, which give only part of the picture; they should scrap the figures and instead rely more on the recorded crime figures, which give a much truer reflection of what is actually happening in constituencies up and down the country. The Government might then be able to do something about the problem.

Jacqui Smith: As I think I have already pointed out, we publish both sets of information, although we need to make that more local and clearer for local people. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of hiding behind figures, but perhaps his constituents will want to ask why he hides behind his and his party's rather poor voting record.

Lynda Waltho: With my right hon. Friend's local knowledge of my constituency, she will know that many of my constituents are employed not only in the local town shops but in the nearby large shopping centre at Merry Hill. Notwithstanding the decrease in crime locally, they are particularly concerned about the levels of violent abuse that they receive. What more can we do to encourage employers and the managers of these organisations to engage with crime reduction partners to tackle this problem?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right: I do know her constituency, and the Merry Hill shopping centre. People who work in the retail sector have the right to be safe, and we need to ensure that we tackle crime in those areas. I am particularly impressed by the freedom from fear campaign that has been established by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I have supported in the past. I think that my hon. Friend was involved in helping to launch it, and other hon. Friends have also been involved in it. It is a very good example of a union working with those who support it to protect the interests not only of its members but of all those who use our shops.

Julian Lewis: I welcome what the Home Secretary has said about doubling the maximum sentence from two to four years for people who carry knives. Will she take it from me, however, that whatever the truth behind the various figures, one reason why public confidence is low is that the policy adopted by the Government of routinely releasing people halfway through their sentence means that someone who receives a four-year sentence knows that they will be out in two years, or sometimes two years minus the time that they have spent on remand? Would it not be better to get back to imposing sentences that mean what they say, while acknowledging—I understand the position on this—that there should be a modest reduction for people who behave well in prison?

Jacqui Smith: First, let me be completely clear that people who are dangerous are not released. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of sentences. In fact, on the whole, the length of sentences has increased since 1997. His words would have more resonance with me and others had his party not voted against the indeterminate sentences that we proposed.

David Howarth: It is striking that the Home Secretary has not yet mentioned the point trailed in the media this morning, that Britain is unique in the degree to which the fear of crime outpaces the reality of crime. I wonder why she has not mentioned that. Could it be that the Government are partly to blame for that situation, especially as the whole basis of new Labour's strategy on crime is never to be outbid by the Conservative party or the  Daily Mail? Is it not time to replace the strategy of having "no enemies on the right" with a new strategy that bases criminal justice policy on the evidence, rather than on prejudice?

Jacqui Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not taking an overly party political approach to this serious issue! However, he makes an important point about public perceptions of crime, and he is right to say that a relatively high proportion of people continue to believe that crime is a serious problem. Actually, today's figures show that crime is stable, having fallen by approximately one third since 1998. The most appropriate ways to deal with the fear of crime are, first, to ensure that crime itself falls, which is why a fall of one third in the past 10 years is so significant, and secondly, to give people confidence—through access to local information and through the ability to see and work with neighbourhood policing teams—that their priorities are being addressed in their local area, and that what is happening through local policing and through their own contribution is making a difference.

Chris Bryant: This next week sees the 40th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which was introduced by a Welsh Labour MP, Leo Abse. It established the partial legalisation of homosexuality. Much has changed since then, but there are still many cases of homophobic violence and abuse. One young man was killed less than a mile from here; he was beaten to death by several young hooligans. A lot of gay-bashing goes on around the country, and there is evidence to suggest that many gay men are reluctant to report it to the police. My right hon. Friend has a substantial personal record on these issues. Will she consider completing it by introducing a specific offence of homophobic hate crime?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend, too, has an important record on these matters. He is right; violence in any form is completely unacceptable, but when it is linked to the kind of hatred and bigotry that homophobic crime represents, it is even worse. A lot of good work is going on in police forces now, including the work that we are doing with them, to record and to tackle crimes with a homophobic element. We will certainly continue to think carefully about how and whether we need to change the nature of offences to reflect the seriousness of the situation that my hon. Friend has identified.

Peter Bone: If it is not inconvenient, would the Home Secretary stop in Wellingborough on her way to her date with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), to meet my constituents, 20 per cent. of whom are afraid to go out at night because of violent crime?

Jacqui Smith: rose—

Vernon Coaker: A tempting offer.

Jacqui Smith: What a day it is going to be! [Hon. Members: "And what a night!"] Indeed. However, I must bring my mind back to the important issue before us. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which I partly addressed when I talked about the way in which we respond to the perception crime. A key part of our strategy must be the visibility of the police and other partners, so that people can see and feel that crime is coming down locally, and so that they do not feel trapped in their homes. This strategy, and the progress that we have already made, are important in ensuring that people have the freedom to live as they want to in their communities.

Graham Allen: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement, especially its emphasis on early intervention and the attempts to crack the inter-generational nature of criminality and deprivation. Does she accept that every pound spent on early intervention programmes, such as the social and emotional aspects of learning, the roots of empathy—which develops empathetic behaviour to inhibit violence—and intensive health visiting, can save perhaps 10 or 15 times that amount from being spent on the tale of underachievement, drug abuse, criminality and a lifetime on benefits? Will she reach out to other Departments to ensure that they play their full part in tackling crime reduction?

Jacqui Smith: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I commend him for the important work that he is doing in Nottingham, particularly in the area of early intervention. I have had the pleasure of working with him on the development of social and emotional education. In the strategy, we are completely clear about the significance of early intervention, and he is right to say that that job will require not only the resources and efforts of the Home Office but efforts across government. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is already committed to an early intervention approach, and I look forward to being able to look at this issue and others across government through the national crime reduction board, which I will bring together and chair.

John Bercow: May I therefore appeal to the Home Secretary to display real statesmanship? Given that more than 60 per cent. of the 12,000 people in our young offender institutions suffer from speech, language and communication impairments that prevent them from accessing education, training and anger management courses, and that in that category, the reoffending rate is 80 per cent., will she undertake to work with her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Justice, for Health, and for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that every young offender institution in the country employs a speech and language therapist, so that those young people can access the help that they need before their lives are permanently blighted?

Jacqui Smith: As a result of our investment in rehabilitation, we have already seen four times as many offenders being taught basic skills in recent years than was the case four years ago. The hon. Gentleman has a strong record of raising the issue of speech and language therapy, which I take seriously, and I will look at the matter that he has raised. He is right to say that this would involve working across government—a commitment that I have already made. I will take this matter very seriously—but I am just disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not add an invitation to a night out in Buckingham.

Points of Order

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to see the Leader of the House in her place, and I hope that she is there to respond to the issue that I am about to draw to the House's attention.
	During business questions earlier this afternoon, I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1952, which relates to the leadership of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I pointed out that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was not going to be a shoo-in, as there will be an election for the position, taking place next week. Given that the Council of Europe is all about democracy, I sought the assurance of the Leader of the House that a democratic election would involve every member of the delegation having a vote for its leadership. The answer I received was: yes, that is what would happen.
	It is now clear that that answer was factually incorrect. I readily accept that the misleading of this House was totally unintentional. Nevertheless, that answer was wrong, because it is absolutely clear that only Labour members will be able to vote. We will therefore end up with a leader of an all-party delegation chosen on the basis that some of us are disfranchised. I hope that the Leader of the House now wants to correct her mistake and then explain why some of us are effectively second-class members, denied the right to say who will be our leader.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House is present. Does she wish to respond?

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for raising this point of order and providing me with an opportunity to clarify the position. I can reassure him that we have not changed the procedure in any way, as it remains the case that the leadership of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe is a matter for the Prime Minister.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must leave it there. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter further, he will have to—

David Wilshire: I simply wanted to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, the Leader of the House has responded to the point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he should consider choosing other channels to do so.

David Wilshire: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be a different point of order if I were to thank the Leader of the House for being so prompt in correcting her mistake?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am more than content to accept that point of order. Perhaps we can now move on to the next business.

Zimbabwe

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Meg Munn: I welcome this debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his opposite number fully intended to participate in the debate, until it was clear that it was going to be significantly delayed as a result of ministerial statements and, as of Tuesday, possible Lords amendments. That is when the decision was taken for me to open the debate. We are, of course, seeking a further debate in the autumn, subject to the agreement of the business managers. We will then be able to debate the matter even more fully.

Kate Hoey: I would like the Minister to clarify exactly what the Foreign Secretary is doing. I know that he has a meeting at 4 o'clock, as the invitations went out last week. However, why is it not possible for him at least to open the debate today? All hon. Members accept how busy he is and would understand if he had to leave, but why has he decided not to open today's debate?

Meg Munn: I do not know exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing at this precise moment, though I know that a number of concerns led him to take the decision, in which he liaised with the Opposition. My hon. Friend will be aware of the issue of Russia, which has demanded my right hon. Friend's attention. She knows, as I do, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is genuinely honourable and genuinely concerned about issues in Zimbabwe, which are a matter of priority within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary sincerely regrets not being able to open today's debate. If it were possible for him to be here, he would indeed have been here.

Nicholas Winterton: I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Does not the Minister agree that the message going out from this House to all those people worldwide who are concerned about Zimbabwe is important? This is the first debate on the subject for three years. I understand that the Foreign Secretary merely has a meeting at Chatham House; and I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is not in his place either. Is it not a very sad indictment when they do not see their first priority as this House rather than elsewhere?

Meg Munn: That is not the message that should go out. The issue is a matter of great concern. The former Leader of the House gave the hon. Gentleman a commitment to have a debate on Zimbabwe, which is being fulfilled. I have now made a further commitment—precisely because it is a matter of such concern and because we want to see it debated even more fully—to have another debate, subject to the agreement of the business managers, in the autumn. There are expectations of further decisions over the next few months, which I will outline in greater detail later, which provide a good reason for having a further debate at that time. We wish to arrange that as soon as possible.
	I shall now move on to the substance of my speech. As the Prime Minister recently said in Berlin of President Mugabe:
	"We call upon him to respect the civil liberties of the people of Zimbabwe, and we call upon him to end what has been a disastrous period of poverty and, in many cases famine, and also the damage to human rights that has been done in that country."
	In my own speech, I will deal with the following issues: the current situation, including the human cost and economic decline; the appalling human rights abuses that have occurred and still are occurring; the response of the region and the Southern African Development Community or SADC initiative; our approach to supporting the people of Zimbabwe and all those now working for democratic change; and the EU-Africa summit.
	I hope that all hon. Members can agree on two points: first, that the situation in Zimbabwe today is appalling; and secondly, that the cause of it is the actions of Robert Mugabe's regime. The bare statistics are shocking enough: an economy halved in just seven years; unimaginable levels of inflation well in excess of 15,000 per cent.; an unemployment rate of more than 80 per cent.; a currency that has lost 99.9 per cent of its value in the last four years; and one in every five adults infected with AIDS.
	The human misery that lies beneath those statistics is starker still. On average, a Zimbabwean boy born today will be dead before he reaches 37, and a Zimbabwean girl will die even earlier—she will not reach 35. One consequence is that today one in four Zimbabwean children has lost a parent. People are fleeing their homes and their country in the hundreds of thousands. The latest estimate is that more than 2,000 cross the Limpopo every night. Around a quarter of the population has already left. Of those who remain, almost half—more than 4 million people—will need food aid by 2008. Let us not forget where this is all happening. It is happening in a country that was one of the richest in Africa—a country that enjoyed comparatively high standards of living, a booming economy, and some of the best health, education and legal systems in the region.
	There can be no doubt where the responsibility for the terrible tragedy in Zimbabwe lies—with President Mugabe and his regime. In the first 10 years after independence, significant gains were made in access to basic services. After 27 years of rule, however, Mugabe's enduring legacy to the people of Zimbabwe is misery, poverty and oppression. Owing to Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe is in the grip of a corrupt culture that has destroyed what was once the bread basket of southern Africa. Since 1998, agricultural productivity has fallen by a staggering 80 per cent. and more than a million people, many of them black commercial farm workers and their families, have lost their livelihoods.

Tony Baldry: I do not wish to be discourteous to the Minister, but those of us who regularly attend debates on Africa and Zimbabwe have all those facts burned into our souls. We do not want to hear a recital of Mugabe's crimes and offences; we know about that. We want to hear what Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office intend to do.

Meg Munn: I understand entirely that many Members know a great deal about the situation and have spent a lot of time raising such issues. Let us remember, however, that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House, it will be read widely, and it is right that the Government put the issues on the record. I do so not to avoid answering the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but to make absolutely clear how poor the situation is, and what the implications are.
	Robert Mugabe's regime has compounded the catastrophic failure of policy at every turn. The mining sector is crippled—gold production is at its lowest ebb since 1917—which has put another 40,000 out of work in the past decade. Today there are reports that Zimbabwe, despite its huge reserves of coal, is having to import from Botswana. Even so, electricity supplies have now become so irregular that those few companies struggling to survive are having to import their own fuel from outside the country.
	The new legislation being rushed through the Zimbabwean Parliament tells the same story. If approved, the legislation will make all foreign investors offer up a 51 per cent. shareholding to local investors. No doubt Robert Mugabe will ensure that his supporters receive the benefit while ordinary people suffer. Meanwhile, in 2005, Robert Mugabe added to the misery of the 1 million people displaced from the countryside by destroying the homes or livelihoods of 700,000 people living in the cities. He has refused to appeal to the UN for food aid, and has persistently ignored the advice of the International Monetary Fund on how to rescue his nose-diving economy.
	I am sorry to report to the House that the latest news coming out of Zimbabwe shows that Robert Mugabe is set on pursuing yet more disastrous policies. The ill-thought-out and economically illiterate Operation Reduce Prices is resulting in panic-buying, empty shelves and looting. The few remaining businesses and manufacturers are closing. As might have been expected, such a clumsy attempt to manipulate market forces is simply driving consumers elsewhere—to the black market. As is always the case, those in the best position to take advantage of such an underground economy are the political elite.
	Zimbabwe is grinding to a halt, while Robert Mugabe and his regime continue to close their eyes to the suffering.

Sally Keeble: I set up an organisation, in which the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is also involved, which provides ongoing support for HIV/AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the people in Zimbabwe place enormous value on the support and solidarity that comes from the UK? That is why the seniority of the ministerial presence in the House, and the level at which the Government engage and seek to put pressure on Zimbabwe, is so important, both in trying to stop Robert Mugabe and in giving some hope and heart to the people who are suffering most under that regime.

Meg Munn: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and accept the reasons behind it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary completely supports the actions being taken, and takes the matter very seriously. The issue is being given priority. I hope that that will reassure the people of Zimbabwe to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
	There is only one way in which a regime that is so incompetent and venal can survive—by denying the people the freedom to change it. Robert Mugabe and his regime depend on brutality and oppression for their survival. Since 11 March, when a young Zimbabwean was shot dead and opposition and civil society leaders bludgeoned, the number of opposition activists arrested and beaten throughout Zimbabwe has continued to grow.

John Bercow: Given that the president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, Beatrice Mtetwa, an extremely distinguished human rights lawyer, and Lovemore Madhuku, the chair of the National Constitutional Assembly, both of whom I had the privilege of meeting as long ago as February 2004, are just two of the people who, on more than one occasion, have been arrested and savagely beaten by the fascistic forces of Mugabe's regime, does the Minister agree that President Mugabe should under no circumstances be allowed to attend the EU-African Union summit, and if he does, that our Prime Minister will boycott that pointless and thoroughly insensitive charade?

Meg Munn: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point. If he will bear with me, I said at the outset that I would refer to the issue, and I will do so.
	In early June, lawyers peacefully protesting outside the high court were attacked and a leading female human rights lawyer was badly beaten in public. In the same month, police used batons against some 200 members of the group Women of Zimbabwe Arise who were protesting peacefully in Bulawayo. Seven of their members were detained and denied access to lawyers. They were held for several nights in degrading conditions before being released without charge. In the past, some of their members have been arrested and detained with their babies.
	Just last week, it was the turn of Zimbabwe's students: when they protested against the forced eviction of 5,000 students from their halls of residence, hundreds were beaten and injured by riot police. All that, of course, is set against the backdrop of the continued persecution of opposition politicians, including Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, the rigging of elections, the systematic crushing of Zimbabwe's free media and the use of food, fuel and land as tools of political repression.
	The meltdown in Zimbabwe is a tragedy for the people of that country, but it is also a problem for the entire region. The repeated lesson of history is that the impacts of state failure will always migrate across borders. It is therefore undoubtedly in the interests of African nations to find and lead the solution to the problems in the country. We will support them in that effort.

James Duddridge: What representations has the Minister received in relation to the Southern African Development Community supporting Zimbabwe, and specifically South Africa, in relation to expanding the rand's monetary area and the customs union to include Zimbabwe at some point?

Meg Munn: I shall refer shortly to the role of SADC.
	Zimbabwe's neighbours are already feeling the negative economic and social consequences of the exodus of Zimbabweans. It is putting added strain on their social and welfare structures. Zimbabwe's neighbours are having to deal with HIV/AIDS patients, malnutrition, safety and security problems. In turn, that is causing tension within their own populations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to his South African counterpart last week. They discussed the more than 2 million refugees already in South Africa—the last thing that South Africa needs—and the damage that Zimbabwe's failure is doing to its neighbours' economies. There are clear signs that the capacity of Zimbabwe's neighbours to absorb those fleeing the country is approaching its limit. South Africa has returned more than 100,000 irregular migrants in the first six months of this year, which is twice the rate of the previous year.
	The regional consequences of Robert Mugabe's destructive approach are one compelling reason for the need for African leadership. The other, equally compelling, is that it is African countries and African leaders who have the greatest influence on the government of Zimbabwe. That is why we support a more active stance by the Southern African Development Community. We have been encouraging progress under President Mbeki's leadership to promote dialogue between ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. President Mbeki updated the Prime Minister earlier this month, and there have been numerous ministerial level contacts with other SADC leaders as the situation in Zimbabwe has worsened.
	We are expecting President Mbeki to report on progress to fellow SADC leaders at the summit in Lusaka set for mid-August. This is the opportunity for them to make a difference. However, I would not be being frank with this House if I did not say that ZANU-PF representatives have repeatedly failed to turn up for talks, and this is not encouraging. Robert Mugabe must not think that the SADC initiative can be used as a smokescreen to distract the opposition and his neighbours while he prepares the ground in Zimbabwe for another set of crooked elections. It would be a catastrophe, not just for Zimbabwe but for the region, if Zimbabwe suffered its fourth manipulated elections in a row next year. SADC has itself agreed high-quality standards for its elections. So we will support its efforts to put its stated commitment to promoting good governance and to respecting human rights and the rule of law into effect. It is only through such regional engagement that the situation can be prevented from deteriorating further.
	African leadership is key. It helps to undercut one of the great sustaining myths of the regime's propaganda effort—that international concern is colonialism by another name. We in this country must be particularly adroit in how we approach this problem. As the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, made clear on British television just a few months ago:
	"The British government cannot be seen to be at the forefront of confronting Mugabe, alone ... that will be misconstrued as a colonial resuscitation of the same situation again. So Britain has to act together with the rest of the international community and the AU".
	However, none of that is to deny the very specific historic connection that we have with the people of Zimbabwe; and it is concern for them which drives our policy. Our approach is twofold. We want to see Zimbabwe back on the road to recovery. We want a reforming Government who pursue sensible and just policies. We want the people to have a chance to choose their Government freely. But until that time, we will do all that we can to relieve the suffering of the people of that country through a significant humanitarian aid programme.
	Let me inform the House of the specific measures that we are taking to keep up the pressure and maintain the international spotlight on Robert Mugabe's regime.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister mentioned the Government's aid programme. May I declare an interest? I am the unremunerated adviser to the Overseas Service Pensioners Association. At the time of Zimbabwe's independence, a group of men and women were assured by the British Government that if they remained in post as civil servants in Zimbabwe their pension entitlements would be honoured. They are people in the most abject poverty. They are our kith and kin. It is shocking that we are not diverting some of the aid to those people. For the reasons that I have stated, they are our kith and kin, and they are some of the poorest. Does the Minister have any plans to review the situation? It is a crime on all of us to have let those people, who were so instrumental in helping the transition from white minority rule to the independent Zimbabwe, fall into this abject poverty.

Meg Munn: We take our duty of care and responsibility for British nationals in Zimbabwe very seriously. We provide a full consular service in Harare. We are making efforts to ensure that all British nationals, including those who are vulnerable and elderly, are aware of the assistance that we and other organisations can offer them. The embassy is making particular efforts to identify and support those who are infirm or elderly and who may find it harder to access consular assistance.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised very specific questions about a particular group of people. I hope that we may be able to provide information to him a little later in the debate.

Roger Gale: The Minister has referred to ex-pat United Kingdom citizens. There is a significant white population who regard themselves fundamentally as British, but hold Zimbabwean passports. I have a constituent who was brought up in the United Kingdom by foster parents, but still holds a Zimbabwean passport. There is no exit route for her. Our own Government deny her access to what she regards as her own country. Is it not time that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office got together and made sure that there was a plan for these people?

Meg Munn: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about plans to support people from Zimbabwe; there are extensive plans.
	The measures that we are taking have the support of Zimbabwean civil society organisations because they are, rightly, focused on Mugabe and his elite, not the people of Zimbabwe. As a direct response to the Government-orchestrated violence in March, we added further names to the EU's travel ban and assets-freeze list. The EU ban on arms sales and the EU travel ban and assets freeze on 131 leading members of the regime remain in place. However, there are no economic sanctions, despite regime propaganda to the contrary, because of the damage they would do to ordinary Zimbabweans. The greatest sanction on the Zimbabwean economy is the policy of the Zimbabwean Government themselves.

Kate Hoey: Is it the position of Her Majesty's Government to support Australian Prime Minister John Howard's decision to order the Australian cricket team not to play Zimbabwe? What is the Government's position on sporting links with Zimbabwe?

Meg Munn: I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to go and play cricket in Zimbabwe. There are currently no sporting sanctions on Zimbabwe, but international sport should never be a way for dictators to publicise their misrule. We would not want the England cricket team to tour there. It is a matter for the English cricketing authorities to decide ultimately whether England play Zimbabwe or not. Our views are clear.
	Let me also say a few words about the EU-Africa summit. We have stated very clearly to all concerned that this Government is committed to Africa and the EU-Africa relationship. Indeed, we launched the EU-Africa partnership strategy in 2005 under the UK Presidency. Above all, we want a summit this year that delivers real results for Africa. We do not want anything to overshadow this work, including Robert Mugabe. We want a solution that is consistent with the EU's common position on Zimbabwe and with what the EU and Africa want to achieve together on governance. We believe that any conference that goes ahead should, in our view, include a specific discussion on the situation in Zimbabwe.
	Meanwhile, we are continuing to shine the UN spotlight on Mugabe's human rights abuses. We pushed for fifty countries to condemn him at the Human Rights Council in March and we will push for Zimbabwe to be back on September's agenda. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the many other groups working in the region and in this country—NGOs, church groups, women's groups and some trade unions in particular—to document and draw attention to the abuses of the regime.

Sally Keeble: What discussions are the Government having with China about what it is doing in Zimbabwe—its financial support is propping up the regime—particularly in terms of access to fuel?

Meg Munn: There are always many rumours that China and other states are providing loans or support to Zimbabwe and we know that Robert Mugabe is always looking for lifelines to keep him afloat. We have discussed with China how it engages with Africa and Zimbabwe specifically. We want China to support the new African agenda led by Africans, and we will continue to consult at a bilateral and EU level.

Kate Hoey: I do not think that my hon. Friend responded to an earlier Opposition question that I would also like to ask. What is the position of the Government on any EU country—Portugal, which holds the presidency, in particular—asking Robert Mugabe to come to the EU-African Union conference?

Meg Munn: The meeting is planned for later in the year and we have made our position clear on this. We are in discussions and there needs to be a solution to the matter.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members want me to tell them what will happen in a few months' time. I am not in a position to tell them, but we are clear that we do not want the summit to be overshadowed by Robert Mugabe.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Minister is not being particularly helpful on this matter. On 15 July,  The Sunday Times reported:
	"Gordon Brown will refuse to attend a forthcoming summit of European Union and African leaders in Lisbon if Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is invited."
	The House is seeking confirmation from the Minister not only that the Prime Minister will refuse to attend the summit if Mugabe is invited, but that so will the Foreign Secretary and all other British Ministers.

Meg Munn: I entirely understand why Members are asking such questions, but what I can say is that we are working with the EU and African partners on a solution that is consistent with the EU common position on Zimbabwe and with what the EU is seeking to achieve on governance. It is important that the conference go ahead, but we do not want it to be overshadowed by Robert Mugabe and we want any solution to be consistent with the EU common position.

Malcolm Rifkind: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Meg Munn: I will take one more intervention on this issue.

Malcolm Rifkind: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I must tell her that she has not answered the question. As I said,  The Sunday Times reported that the Prime Minister had already made it clear that he would not attend the summit under such circumstances. If the Minister refuses to repeat that assurance, that will imply that the Government are equivocal on the matter, which will send the wrong signal not only to Harare but, equally importantly, to Lisbon. It is important that the Minister today state clearly and unambiguously that the Prime Minister will not attend the EU summit if Mr. Mugabe is invited.

Meg Munn: I had intended to give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quicker on his feet—that might teach the hon. Gentleman a lesson.
	I am being as clear as I can be on this matter, and it is very clear where the Government stand in respect of Robert Mugabe. I have set out at length our views on this situation: we are working with EU and African partners on a solution that is consistent with the EU common position on Zimbabwe. I cannot answer any more questions on the matter, as I would merely be repeating myself.
	While maintaining and tightening political pressure, we are providing targeted humanitarian assistance.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn: May I make a little more progress? I know that I told the hon. Gentleman to be quicker on his feet, but he might on this occasion have risen a little too quickly.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would have expanded further on the issue of such assistance in closing the debate—which he wished to do—were he not currently in Sudan dealing with another pressing problem with which Members will be familiar. However, I can inform Members that we are one of the three largest donors to Zimbabwe, and that UK money is helping to keep hundreds of thousands of people alive. Last year, we committed more than £33 million to humanitarian programmes, including food aid. In the last five years we have given £35 million to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and we have committed a further £47 million for the next three years.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Meg Munn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: I thank the Minister for giving way. All she needed to say on the summit was that if Mugabe does attend, our Prime Minister will not.
	On the travel ban issue, I simply ask that given that the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Gideon Gono, is responsible for the 10,000 per cent. inflation that is wrecking the lives of millions of Zimbabweans, why on earth is he not banned from entering our country? He is thoroughly unwelcome.

Meg Munn: I understand that we are seeking to do something about that. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a few moments, I shall flick through my brief and try to find some information that might allow me to respond more precisely to his question, but first let me finish what I have to say about aid.
	Baroness Vadera announced yesterday in another place that we will commit a further £50 million over the next five years to continue the protracted relief programme in Zimbabwe. That will enable continuing provision of social protection in the form of agricultural inputs, water and sanitation, training and home-based care for some 2 million of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Zimbabwe. Our aid is channelled through United Nations and NGO agencies, not via the Government. Our food aid is not a part of the ZANU-PF programme to use food as a means to force support or to punish opposition. We are also spending another £3.3 million this year supporting civil society and organisations working to promote good governance and open democratic space.
	I can now respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham. On the Reserve Bank governor, Gideon Gono, we have argued for what the hon. Gentleman asks, but other EU partners have not supported us on it. We are clear that he is not welcome in the UK.
	Of course, we have a particular responsibility for those British nationals still residing in or visiting Zimbabwe. Their welfare is a prime concern. We provide a full consular service in Harare and we maintain a network of consular correspondents to ensure that we keep in close touch with our nationals in other urban and rural areas. We have a comprehensive and regularly updated contingency plan that covers the 12,000 nationals registered with the British embassy, including the elderly and vulnerable.
	The country and people of Zimbabwe are being driven into the ground by the policies of a corrupt and brutal regime. Zimbabwe can recover, but only if the policies are in place to permit it. The UK stands ready to help substantially with Zimbabwe's recovery. I know that many of the Zimbabwean diaspora are anxious to return to Zimbabwe and play their part.

James Duddridge: The Minister says that the governor is not welcome in the UK. For the sake of clarity, can she tell us whether that means he is subject to a travel ban? Many people are not welcome here, but that does not mean that they are subject to a travel ban.

Meg Munn: I hope to clarify that point later for the hon. Gentleman, but my understanding is that other EU member states did not support our view on that, so the governor is not on the EU visa ban list. We are working, through the EU, on a common position and making our views clear.

Gerald Howarth: The whole House is grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way, and we recognise the great difficulties with which she is trying to wrestle. I wish to return to the point that I made earlier about the overseas pensioners. The note that the Minister was sent did not address the point at issue. I am specifically asking for an undertaking today that some part of the £33 million of aid will be specifically earmarked for those whose continued service through independence was responsible for reassuring the white community that there would be some stability after independence. The fact that they honoured their commitment to stay on led to the successful transition. Lord Trefgarne wrote that the independence constitution provides
	"full safeguards for public service pensions and their remittability".
	That has not happened, and I ask the Minister for an undertaking today that those people will be looked after through the British taxpayers' money that is going to Zimbabwe. Let us earmark some of it for those people.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned £33 million, but I think that I said £3.3 million. I will clarify that point, but I do not want to commit more money than we have in our coffers on my first outing at the Dispatch Box on this subject.
	On independence, state pensions for civil servants in Zimbabwe became the responsibility of the Zimbabwe Government, and there has been no change in that position. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are making every effort to support those British nationals who are vulnerable and whose pensions have become worthless as a consequence of Robert Mugabe's economic policy. Those people are being treated in the same way as other British nationals in Zimbabwe.
	I will give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) in a moment, but the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) asked about the money situation. As yet, there are no formal proposals for Zimbabwe to join the rand zone. At this stage, little apart from a complete reversal of Robert Mugabe's economic policies would slow down the country's economic decline.

Nicholas Winterton: I appreciate that the Minister has faced huge difficulties in coming to the Dispatch Box to debate a subject of which she has little knowledge, and I think that the whole House sympathises and understands. However, is she not aware that it was the UK and not Europe that brought Mr. Mugabe to power? That means that we should take more responsibility, so why do we not impose a ban on the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, irrespective of the views of other European countries? That would set an example to others, and make it clear that the man cannot come to the UK because he is unwelcome and undesirable.

Meg Munn: I am not sure how to respond, as I think that I was being damned with faint praise by the hon. Gentleman. Although I certainly bow to the extensive knowledge of Zimbabwe displayed by other hon. Members, I would not describe my situation quite as he did.
	For the first 10 or so years of his regime, Robert Mugabe pursued progressive policies—

Nicholas Winterton: What about the 1983 Matabeleland massacre?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Meg Munn: I hesitate to say that problems did not arise, but the situation in Zimbabwe at the outset of Mr. Mugabe's regime was very different from what it is today. However, I think that I have made clear the Government's position in respect of the governor of the Reserve Bank.

Chris Mullin: I hope that it will assist my hon. Friend the Minister if I suggest that she need not bow too deeply to the extensive knowledge of these matters displayed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), as the UK did not bring Mr. Mugabe to power. He came to power as the result of a free election in Zimbabwe. In so far as we had any influence, we backed Bishop Muzorewa, who got 3 per cent. of the vote.

Meg Munn: I am very happy to bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge, although I was referring to the collective expertise displayed by the House. However, this debate is not about who knows most. We should be considering what it is right for us to do, what we are doing, and how we can continue to press the matter. As I said at the outset, our policies do not end here, by any means. Further aid to Zimbabwe was announced only yesterday, and there is a SADC meeting in August. It will be appropriate for the House to discuss this matter again when we return from the summer recess.

John Bercow: rose—

Meg Munn: I give way for the final time to the hon. Gentleman who is so light on his feet.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful, and I am sorry to press this point but it is important. Gideon Gono is both a craven lickspittle of Mugabe and the architect of the destruction of the livelihoods of millions of Zimbabweans. Why on earth can we not unilaterally impose a ban on his coming to this country? Which EU member states stand in the way of more robust and concerted action? I think we should be told.

Meg Munn: I will try to be robust in response. Gideon Gono is not welcome in the UK. He does not intend to travel here, and we do not intend to let him come.
	I end by saying that a major change of direction is needed, and a major change of policy. Only then can the situation in Zimbabwe be reversed. We do not believe that Robert Mugabe is willing or able to change and, more importantly, nor do the people of Zimbabwe. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that their voice is heard, so that Zimbabwe can enjoy new leadership and a new start.

Keith Simpson: May I begin by welcoming the Minister to her first debate at the Dispatch Box? She was generous in giving way to hon. Members. She managed to stick to a pretty feeble script provided by the Foreign Office. Those of us who have served in Departments know only too well the kind of script that will often have in brackets: "If pressed", "If really pressed", "Under no circumstances admit this" and—the biggest joke of all—when one turns the page, "You're on your own now."

Tony Baldry: Can my hon. Friend tell me one thing that the Minister said that we should welcome? Has not the House today witnessed a rather terrifying sight? It sounded like we had a Foreign Office Minister who felt unable to say anything on a line to take, because the Foreign Office seems to be groping desperately for an EU common position. Until they have found their EU common position, Ministers at the Foreign Office do not seem able to tell us what Her Majesty's Government actually think. It was a pathetic performance.

Keith Simpson: As usual, my hon. Friend states delicately what a number of colleagues have felt and expressed. Although I may have begun my reply with a lightness of touch, what he and other hon. Members have touched on is a very serious situation. I have no intention of reading out the long litany of things that President Mugabe has done or of setting out the appalling circumstances in Zimbabwe. I wish to concentrate on the fact that Zimbabwean society is close to breaking, that the situation there is likely to explode among the neighbouring countries, and that—to pick up the point that my hon. Friend mentioned—it is difficult to establish from the Minister's comments what the policy of Her Majesty's Government actually is and what they intend to do about the crisis.
	The international community must accept that the stand that it has taken against Mugabe has proved almost totally ineffective. The build-up of pressure has been weakened by a lack of cohesion between states which firmly oppose the Mugabe regime and states which are unprepared to stand directly against it. President Mugabe has been able to circumvent attempts to isolate both his Government and him personally by exploiting those divisions. At every opportunity, he has attempted to use a distorted view of Zimbabwe's historical relationship with Britain to peddle the fable that it is only he who bravely stands against the interference of a former colonial power.
	I recognise that, amazingly, Mugabe is still regarded as a hero of the anti-colonial struggle by many Zimbabweans and by those living in neighbouring countries, but recognising that does not mean that we have feebly to accept the fact that we in Britain cannot argue the case forcefully, recognising our colonial heritage. We have a direct moral, economic and political interest in the peoples of Zimbabwe and, indeed, the future of south Africa. If we do not recognise that, we deserve to be a minor European power.

Roger Gale: Would my hon. Friend include in that responsibility a responsibility for former colonials and Zimbabwean passport holders—the sons and daughters of people who went out from this country and helped to make that country once great?

Keith Simpson: I would hope that any British Government would look with a great deal of favour on those people. If nothing else, we have a moral responsibility to them and a responsibility in relation to their potential fate in Zimbabwe.
	Mugabe has consistently managed to foil diplomatic attempts to bring political change in Zimbabwe while —unfortunately—profiting from the protective umbrella of African states which help to keep him at arm's length from the demands of the international community. However, those very African states that will bear the brunt of the social and political fallout in the event of Zimbabwe's collapse. As the Minister pointed out, large numbers of refugees are already moving into the neighbouring countries of South Africa, Botswana and Malawi, and the potential for regional destabilisation is growing.
	What estimates have the Government made of the number of refugees who are pouring into each of those countries and what is the Government's assessment of the countries' capacity to cope with any surge in the numbers fleeing? The international community must be ready to assist the south African countries and plan a response to the possible humanitarian crisis that looms ever closer. What international assistance would be provided in the event of a desperate humanitarian situation? What discussions have the Government held at the UN and with our European partners about this subject?
	One of our many concerns is the security and well-being of UK passport holders in Zimbabwe. Will the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), tell the House how many UK passport holders are residing in Zimbabwe? Furthermore, if the internal situation breaks down into wider disorder, what are the Government's contingency plans to protect or evacuate those people? I am trying to keep to specific factual questions. I would have hoped that the Foreign Office might have thought that hon. Members would ask such questions. I look to the Minister to reply to some of them during his winding-up speech.
	For such reasons, now, more than ever, the international community must ensure that concerted pressure is brought to bear on the regime to hasten the return of democracy. Mugabe's position internally is increasingly precarious, and there are signs of factions developing in ZANU-PF, his party. In that context, the redoubling of efforts across a broad coalition of countries could undoubtedly help to strengthen the existing forces for change.
	One of the most pertinent points that has been raised during the debate is whether President Mugabe will be invited to attend the EU-African Union summit later this year. I understand only too well that the British Government wish, as far as possible, to line up with their EU partners. Considerable strength will arise from that. However, given what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said about the Prime Minister's alleged comments, many people will have found it incredible that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was unable to say that the British Government's preferred option was for President Mugabe not to attend the conference. That should be the Government's preferred option. It would find support across the House and send a powerful message to Mugabe and his henchmen.
	Surely possible disadvantages would be outweighed by the implications of Mugabe's attendance. Allowing him to attend would be wholly inconsistent with the EU common position that bans 140 of Mugabe's henchmen and officials from travelling. We know that he will exploit the occasion for all it is worth to show Zimbabweans that he is still fêted and welcomed by the international community. We must send the signal that the destruction that he has wrought on his own people cannot be tolerated not only by Britain, a former colonial power, but the whole of the EU. Successive British Prime Ministers have talked about putting Britain at the centre of Europe. On this issue, let us at least put ourselves firmly at the centre of the EU, set an example and damn the others to follow us.
	In May, in reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Minister for the Middle East wrote:
	"We will look to the Presidency for a solution on Zimbabwean attendance that is consistent with the EU Common Position on Zimbabwe."—[ Official Report, 14 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 504W.]
	Will the Under-Secretary explain in more detail during his winding-up speech what outcome the Government would consider to be consistent with the EU common position? What steps will the Government take to ensure that Mugabe cannot attend? Will the Minister assure the House that none of the representatives of Mugabe's Government who is on the EU travel ban list will be allowed to attend? Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister gave a commitment that he will not attend the conference if President Mugabe attends? Will he give us a clear yes or no?
	International sanctions justifiably target the influential figures at the heart of the regime in Zimbabwe—those who continue to prosper at the direct expense of the general populace. We understand that whatever action Britain takes should be carried out through the mechanism of the European Union because that will refute Mugabe's argument that Britain, the former colonial power, is the driving force. Unfortunately, sanctions have lacked a direct impact to affect the attitudes of those who could force Mugabe to change his course. As the Minister said, fewer than 130 individuals linked to the Mugabe regime are subject to a travel ban and asset freeze under EU sanctions. Will the Government clarify whether they believe that 130 individuals accurately reflects the number of people responsible for conducting Mugabe's operations across the wide network of governmental departments and bodies, and police, youth-militia and intelligence services?
	Following the violence that took place against opposition politicians in Zimbabwe four months ago, the UK Government said:
	"We are pushing for, and expect there to be, progress on the addition of extra names to the EU visa ban list".—[ Official Report, 26 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1164.]
	However, since then, only a handful of names have been included, and that can hardly be described as a substantial advance. The one person whose name is continually mentioned in debates on the subject—Gideon Gono, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, who is responsible for the country's treasury and who controls almost all the economic Ministries—does not appear on the EU list, although it appears on the lists drawn up by New Zealand and the United States. Why is it not on the EU list, and why have the British Government not told our European colleagues that that is totally and utterly unacceptable?
	In a letter of 21 July to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, the Foreign Secretary's predecessor said that the UK would press the EU to add Mr. Gono's name to the EU list. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs tell the House why those representations failed? Did the EU say, "Not now; we are not prepared to do that. Come back later"? Will those representations be revived, or does the EU lack the resolve to deal with the matter?
	Surely the time has come for a wider asset freeze and travel ban, covering all family members and business associates of the people who are already on the list, and surely EU visas and residence permits should be cancelled. It is well known that many family members of Zimbabwean Government officials on the EU travel ban list reside in EU countries. It would significantly strengthen the EU common position if we revoked those rights of residence. Additionally, the institutions in Zimbabwe that are instruments of the Government and their members should be made subject to the EU assets freeze. It is crucial that the Mugabe regime and those closest to it start to feel the personal cost of the devastation that they are inflicting on their country.

Richard Benyon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the outgoing American ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, has made clear his Government's commitment to introducing just such a ban? That gives a strong message to the coterie of thugs who run Zimbabwe, and my hon. Friend is right to press the Government on his very similar point.

Keith Simpson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I read the report to which he refers, which was robust. It is an example to the British Government and our EU neighbours. Given the hugely destabilising impact that Zimbabwe's collapse would have on the region, its neighbours seem to be displaying a regrettable lack of foresight and urgency. The outcome of an extraordinary summit held by the Southern African Development Community in Tanzania this March was indeed extraordinary, if not rather unbelievable. The summit's participants refused publicly to criticise Mugabe, and instead reaffirmed their 'solidarity', while appealing for the end of
	"all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe".
	One result of the summit was that President Mbeki of South Africa was appointed to mediate a political settlement between the Government of Zimbabwe and their opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change. His efforts are to be wholeheartedly supported, but it must be noted that it was the fifth time since 2000 that the SADC had asked President Mbeki to facilitate political dialogue in Zimbabwe, and it came long after his admission in 2004 that his quiet diplomacy had failed. As our former Prime Minister Tony Blair stated, the solution will ultimately have to come from Africa, but the international community must do whatever it can to encourage the process.
	Political negotiation and collaboration between the main political parties will be vital to any transition towards democratic reform. Britain can assist in that effort, but fresh impetus desperately needs to be injected into the diplomatic attempts to nurture that political process. In the absence of stronger support from the wider southern Africa leaders, the task has proven too difficult for a succession of distinguished figures, including the previous President of Tanzania, the former Mozambican President, the Nigerian leader and the former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. It seems to many of us that large numbers of members of the international community are wringing their hands and passing around messages of support, but not taking any action.
	President Mbeki's latest arbitration attempt has not had an auspicious start: ZANU-PF representatives have failed to turn up to talks in Pretoria on three separate occasions. Mugabe shows no serious sign of taking the initiative, and while he stalls, life for millions of Zimbabweans becomes ever more desperate.
	Do not the Government share our concern that events are moving at such a fast pace that the country's rapidly plummeting economy may render the talks irrelevant, and, indeed, may render the Government's statement this afternoon irrelevant? What steps are the Government taking in conjunction with their European counterparts and the AU to support President Mbeki's endeavours and persuade him to intensify them? What role is the UK High Commissioner in South Africa, a former Government Minister, taking in all this? He is a distinguished, diplomatic and feline politician who, I would imagine, could put his good offices at the disposal of the international community. Does the Minister have any confidence that the current set of talks will succeed, given the urgency of the situation?
	Local pressure will be decisive in influencing events in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the solidarity and mutual interests of states within the SADC continue to outweigh objections that they may have regarding Mugabe's rule. Mugabe has not only consistently avoided any significant pressure from his neighbours and resisted the advances of quiet diplomacy, but he has used his African alliance to deter escalation through the UN Security Council.
	By any estimate, there remain clear gaps as well as weaknesses in the international consensus. The UK Government's aim to achieve international solidarity must be deemed to be failing until more progress can be made to bring the members of the SADC on board. Have the Government given any thought to how the Commonwealth might be engaged to play a constructive role in the crisis? Although Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003 after suspension from the councils, its neighbouring countries are all members. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Commonwealth is uniquely positioned to take action and exert influence on the neighbours of Zimbabwe and make certain that Zimbabwe remains at the top of the Commonwealth agenda?
	The detrimental long-term effects of tolerating the Mugabe regime need to be strongly and clearly laid out. The international community must succeed in convincing Zimbabwe's neighbours that a failed state in their near proximity is a threat to their best interests. In the coming months, the burden of humanitarian and social collapse, as well as economic demise, will increasingly fall on Zimbabwe's neighbours—South Africa, Botswana, Malawi and others. Britain must convince them that protecting a failing regime is short-sighted, in view of the awaiting economic and humanitarian cost, and will only hinder the future development of the whole region. The kind of statement that the Minister had to read out this afternoon is not exactly a trumpet call to taking action against Zimbabwe. It is a rather muted, strangled whine that will have no influence whatever on Zimbabwe or its neighbours.
	Careful consideration must be given to initiating International Criminal Court investigations into the atrocities committed by Mugabe and members of his regime. Earlier this year, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said:
	"The ICC is the next stage; the first stage, which we must concentrate on, is the process of engaging with front-line states and people internally in Zimbabwe to get a new regime and a new Government following agreed democratic principles."——[ Official Report, 26 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1175.]
	It goes without saying that everyone in the House would dearly love to witness the completion of stage 1 as he outlined, but we must also consider whether bringing legal proceedings forward might leave those indicted in no doubt of their accountability to international law, and perhaps provide them with the clearest view yet of the end-game approaching.
	Finally, it is vital that the international community presents a united front in pursuing a clear strategy that increases the penalties on the Zimbabwean leaders, while showing that there is another way open if those who support them change their course.

John Bercow: Is my hon. Friend not also concerned about the reckless deportation under the auspices of the Home Office of a number of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers, with the consequence that they are seriously at risk of arrest, imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all four? Does he agree that it is lamentable that a constituent of mine was told that he could safely be removed to Zimbabwe because, although he supported the MDC, he was not an office-holder in the MDC? Does that not show a degree of ignorance of the sheer viciousness of the Zimbabwean regime, as well as the extensiveness of its intelligence operations?

Keith Simpson: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this. Given what is going on in Zimbabwe—the actions of the Government, across the piece, against Opposition leaders, local people and business men, a legal system that does not work, and the actions of police and paramilitaries—the idea of deporting anybody is absolutely wrong. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will look again at any cases that they have before them.
	The kind of pressure that I have been outlining could be achieved by defining a set of US and EU incentives and disincentives to accompany the sanctions, with specific benchmarks on Zimbabwe's progress. We must make it clear that the international community stands ready to support and assist Zimbabwe if its leadership is prepared to make the dramatic change needed to give the country a truly democratically elected Government. I cannot see any circumstances in which President Mugabe is going to give in to such sanctions. He will step down only if members of his own coterie and political party remove him in one way or another, or if he is persuaded to do so through pressure from the powerful leaders of neighbouring countries who force him to recognise that his only way out is a retirement home in some third country where he will be given a suitable pension. Although I would regret his receiving such a pension, that would be in line with one or two other tyrants who have ruled in post-colonial Africa.
	The international community must now take firm steps in a concerted manner, and many of us look to the British Government to take the lead. We should work closely with international partners to widen the EU sanctions list to include family members and business associates of the regime. Adding the governor of the reserve bank to the list and subjecting institutions in Zimbabwe that are instruments of the Government, and their members, to the same controls are ways in which further pressure can be applied to the regime's Ministers and officials. A refusal to issue President Mugabe with an invitation to the EU/AU summit later this year would send a very plain message. If that is not possible, our Prime Minister should refuse to attend that summit. We should also consider action by the International Criminal Court and persuade southern African countries and institutions such as the AU and the Commonwealth to exploit their many points of influence with the Mugabe regime, which would squeeze his room for manoeuvre.
	The spectre of disaster has hung over Zimbabwe for too long. Many of us have received messages, e-mails and letters from constituents who have friends and relatives there. We have a duty not only because of our colonial past but because of our international role. I genuinely believe that the Minister made the best she could of her script, but I am afraid that it was, at least for Conservative Members, totally unacceptable.

Kate Hoey: I share other Members' concern about the absence of the Foreign Secretary. Given the amount of notice for this debate and its importance to Parliament—and, indeed, to my Government, given what the Prime Minister has said about Africa—it is very sad that the Foreign Secretary finds himself unable to attend, thereby allowing the shadow Foreign Secretary to re-book his flight to Washington, having cancelled it because it seemed on Monday that the Foreign Secretary was going to be here. I hope that that does not in any way reflect on the firmness of the Government's commitment to do something quickly about Zimbabwe. It is a bad day for Parliament.
	However, the fact that we are discussing Zimbabwe in the House will be a morale boost for the very many brave people I have got to know during my visits to Zimbabwe, and for Zimbabweans generally. As they endure ever-increasing hardship and oppression, we must continue to reaffirm our solidarity with them until they gain their liberation and dignity. That can come about only through absolutely free and fair elections that are internationally monitored.
	I shall not go through a list of events, as the Minister has already done so, and they have been mentioned many times, but the recent news from Zimbabwe has been increasingly grim, as the regime's rather cynical policy of enforcing price cuts takes effect. As with the earlier campaigns that destroyed commercial farming, and Operation Clear Out Rubbish, this operation has been carried out with ruthless efficiency, regardless of financial or human cost, and with the sole objective of entrenching ZANU-PF rule.
	I am proud to be chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, many members of which are here today. During the past few years, I have felt it important to get inside Zimbabwe to see what is going on. I visited three times in the past three years, and saw Operation Clear Out Rubbish; I saw people having to abandon all their belongings as they were driven off who knows where.

John Bercow: I had a similar opportunity to visit in February 2004. I take the opportunity to invite the hon. Lady to pay generous tribute to David Banks, who once headed the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, and who is a tireless campaigner for liberty, freedom and justice in that country. He is a magnificent person who briefs a great many of us, and we should welcome his contribution.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that David Banks is the last person who would want to be thanked, but I know that he will appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, and all of us who have worked with him have benefited from his welcome support and knowledge of Zimbabwe.
	The purpose of my last visit was to show solidarity with the trade unionists who, hon. Members will remember, were beaten up when Mugabe unleashed a brutal crackdown last autumn. I was able to travel throughout Matabeleland, north and south, Mashonaland, west and east, and the midlands. I visited rural and urban areas and met people from many backgrounds. If people just go into Harare on business for a day, they might think that things are somehow normal in Zimbabwe, although it is difficult for anything to appear normal at the moment. It is important that we understand the deep-seated fear of such an absolutely brutal dictatorship. The regime has agents and informers everywhere, willing to betray those involved in any struggle for freedom.
	The arrest of senior opposition leaders in March showed the shameless brutality of the regime. Many of those who were arrested are friends and comrades with whom I have shared danger during my visits, and many of them have visited Parliament and spoken at our meetings, such as Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamesa, Sekai Holland and Grace Kwinje of the Movement for Democratic Change; Lovemore Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly, who has been beaten up so many times over the years; Mike Davies of the Harare Residents Association; and Lovemore Matombo and Lucia Matibenga of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
	I pay tribute to many of the British trade unions, which are taking a much greater interest in what is happening in Zimbabwe, and have hosted visits and support for the trade union movement. The list of people I mentioned is a roll call of those targeted by Central Intelligence Organisation agents and the militia in their systematic campaign of violence against anyone who poses a threat to Mugabe's reign of terror and national destruction. We all saw the pictures of those people's bloodied and beaten faces, and the brutal injuries sustained while they were recently in custody. They were shocking images. Even as we speak, and practically every night, somewhere in Zimbabwe the police or army are taking activists out of their homes. Many of them are never returned—their bodies are found later—and many are beaten up and tortured. There has been a systematic attempt, particularly during the past six weeks, to pick on people who are crucial grass-roots opposition activists.
	However, those images were not shocking enough to draw any condemnation from the leaders of African nations. Mugabe has blatantly and unapologetically beaten and murdered people in Zimbabwe, yet he is still cheered and applauded by African leaders. It happened in May when he spoke at the Nairobi summit of COMESA—the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. I find that shameful. Getting rid of South Africa's old regime was properly perceived as the business of the world, but South Africa's leaders now dismiss Zimbabwe's crisis as an internal matter to be tackled by the people of Zimbabwe.
	Many people ask me, "Why don't they just rise up?" One reason for Zimbabweans' reluctance to protest on the streets and face the regime head on is that the Angolan, Mozambiquan and South African liberation movements knew that they had a safe haven in sympathetic neighbouring countries, but Zimbabwe is surrounded by countries that are either cheerleaders for Mugabe's dictatorship or choose to turn a cowardly blind eye to the atrocities that he metes out to anyone who dares challenge his rule and his vanity. Zimbabweans who stand up to Mugabe's disastrous rule should be welcomed with open arms as the front-line heroes of a new Africa. Instead, Thabo Mbeki defends the tired old men who have so miserably betrayed the dreams of their generation.
	It is often said that politicians in the developed world must understand how they are perceived in Africa. However, African politicians must understand how they are seen in the rest of the world. One of our most important tasks is to help change international perception of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is far from stupid; he is a clever operator and he has manipulated world opinion, especially in the African region. He has also played on our memories of past struggles to paralyse progressive opinion, which should express outrage at what he is doing. We have to make it clear that it is as unacceptable to defend Robert Mugabe today as it would have been to defend Pinochet or Idi Amin in the past. I make no apology for saying that, unfortunately, Mugabe has been propped up by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and others in the region, who should be ashamed of themselves.
	However, things are changing in South Africa. I was in Johannesburg earlier this year and I met representatives of COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, on the day of their central executive committee. On that day, they issued a statement, which said that the congress would not close its eyes when President Mugabe's Government trampled on workers and human rights while blaming all his country's problems on imperialists. It is a great step forward that the South African trade union movement has recognised the Mugabe regime for what it is.
	We in this country could have done more, even in the recent past. I pay tribute to everybody who works in our embassy in Harare—it is not easy working in a country such as Zimbabwe—especially Andrew Pocock, our ambassador. I was disappointed by the response to our wonderful embassy's recent recommendation recently that Chingoka, the chairman of the Zimbabwean cricket board, should not be allowed to take part in the International Cricket Council at Lords because he had benefited through huge amounts of money from the corrupt operation of the cricket regime in Zimbabwe. The embassy's advice was that he should not be given a visa. To be fair to the then Foreign Office Minister, Lord Triesman, I must add that he wanted to stop Chingoka coming here. But a discussion took place, and I am afraid that the then Minister for Sport said that it would be difficult for the English cricket authorities if Chingoka was not allowed in. They ended up with the compromise that he was allowed in for the four days of the conference rather than a bit longer. There was therefore a small attempt to do something.
	However, only a few weeks earlier, John Howard in Australia said what he thought. He told Australian cricketers, "You're not going to Zimbabwe." The Australian cricket board said, "Great. Fine." The International Cricket Council could not fine the board because its Government had told the cricketers that they could not go. No money went to Zimbabwe in compensation, which meant that it did not reach the pockets of the corrupt people who run cricket there. None of the money reaches Zimbabwe cricket grass roots. Time and again, we appear to shilly-shally and use the excuse of being the old imperial power, which does not wash any more.

Richard Benyon: I have huge regard for the hon. Lady and her brave efforts on behalf of Zimbabwe. Does she agree that those who say that we should keep politics out of sport are missing the point? If a cricket team from Vauxhall or Newbury went to Zimbabwe, that would be regrettable. If a cricket team from Berkshire or Surrey went to Zimbabwe, that would be undesirable. Once a player puts three lions on his shirt and plays for the national team, however, the game inevitably becomes political, and is used by leaders in countries such as Zimbabwe as an endorsement.

Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree. Even though the Zimbabwe first team is not coming here again soon, we could send an important signal by saying that we will not go. I would also like to add my voice to those who have called for sporting sanctions against Zimbabwe. If it was good enough to impose sporting sanctions against South Africa, it is certainly good enough to impose them against Zimbabwe.
	During his recent state visit to this country, President Kufuor of Ghana, the chairman of the African Union, was harassed by some young Zimbabweans at a meeting at Chatham House, but he described what is happening in Zimbabwe as "embarrassing" to the AU. He then asked what more African nations could do. The answer is not necessarily that they should start doing certain things, but that they should stop doing them. For example, he might have started by not inviting Robert Mugabe to Ghana's independence celebrations. We heard earlier about the extraordinary meeting of heads of state of the Southern African Development Community in Dar es Salaam in March to discuss the political, economic and security situation in Zimbabwe. The communiqué talked about how there had been free and fair presidential elections in 2002—an assessment that was not shared by the many international observers or by civil society in Zimbabwe. The communiqué made no mention of the parliamentary elections of 2005.
	Mugabe and his African supporters have skilfully manoeuvred international opinion to get so-called engagement to be exactly what they wanted it to be. The international community was persuaded that the problem was an African crisis that needed an African solution, and handed it over to the African Union. The African Union was then relieved to hand over the hot potato to SADC, which then gave President Mbeki a feeble mandate to "facilitate dialogue". We have ended up with a protracted process that merely buys time for Mugabe to continue plundering the economy and using brutality to persecute his opponents. I believe that Zimbabwe is in flagrant breach of the declared norms and standards of SADC. SADC nations should consider perhaps suspending Zimbabwe's membership—but sadly, such a prospect is highly unlikely.
	Nearly all the SADC countries are members of the Commonwealth, however. The crisis group report suggests that Commonwealth member countries in southern African should help to mediate a political settlement for a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe and set benchmarks for the country's return to the Commonwealth. Let us not forget that when Nigeria and South Africa were out of the Commonwealth, this country still treated them as though they were part of it, and tried to continue dialogue behind the scenes. The Commonwealth should be doing more. Why is it not? Will the Minister say whether Zimbabwe will be on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kampala later this year? Indeed, have we asked it to be put on the agenda?
	Too often, international experts are flown into Zimbabwe and hand out prescriptions without engaging with the local population. Zimbabwe is one of the most well educated and highly trained nations in Africa. The people have the necessary skills to rebuild the infrastructure of their own country. Massive international assistance will be needed, but that process must be led and implemented by Zimbabweans. There are encouraging signs that the Commonwealth will help to facilitate a partnership for reconstruction, commissioned by the people of Zimbabwe and accountable to them. I hope that DFID and the FCO will do all that they can to support such initiatives.
	The Government should try to re-internationalise the crisis. The time is drawing near when, if there is no sign of progress when Mbeki reports back in August, our Prime Minister should convene a summit with SADC and other Commonwealth and European Union member states, to develop a co-ordinated international strategy of incentives and disincentives that will bring about change in Zimbabwe. They should sometimes include reassigning the aid budgets for other AU nations, especially those that prop up Mugabe, to bring home to them the massive costs arising from their inaction and complicity. We cannot go on footing the bill. My constituents in the inner-city area of Vauxhall are paying for Mugabe's madness. This week, the White House would deliver a massive amount of new aid to feed 1.4 million people until the country's next harvest in 2008. Last night, it was announced in the Lords that the Department for International Development was committing £50 million more to extend the protracted relief programme.
	Ironically, however, it is international aid—the food aid provided bilaterally and by UN agencies without condition or consultation since 2001—that keeps Mugabe going. It has been unquestioningly supported by the donor nations of the developed world. By "unquestioningly", I mean that the accepted wisdom of aid giving is that it is apolitical. Yet in this instance, a cunning regime has co-opted donor aid as a vital plank of its strategy of political control and oppression. I have seen for myself the way in which food was withheld from areas of the country where people had dared to vote for the Opposition.
	In the Zimbabwean context everything is political, and the sooner the aid agencies recognise that, the better. We have to end the holier-than-thou attitude of the aid agencies that say that political considerations are beneath them. It is madness to commit ever larger amounts of our aid budget to dealing with symptoms without funding a cure. As we give this money, we should also give support to the trade unions and other elements of civil society that are starved of resources as they struggle to survive in Zimbabwe. How can we expect a vibrant alternative to the regime to flourish and be effective unless we give it the support that it needs? If we applied just a fraction of our humanitarian aid budget to supporting the very capable elements in Zimbabwe that offer a real alternative to the present disastrous regime, we might find that we could start to invest in the recovery of Zimbabwe, rather than simply providing sticking plasters for its bleeding wounds.
	Benjamin Paradza was a commander in ZANLA during the liberation war, and he went on to become a High Court judge in Zimbabwe before he had to leave. In an e-mail earlier this week, he said:
	"A humanitarian crisis is brewing in Zimbabwe of a scale never seen before. What Zimbabweans need to know is not that the British government is giving humanitarian aid. Most of it does not reach the intended beneficiaries anyway. They do not want to hear that when things change in Zimbabwe, there is a rescue plan to kick-start the economy. Yes, all that is most welcome. Zimbabwe will undoubtedly need a lot of international assistance to rebuild the economy and other institutions. What they need most at the moment, as a matter of urgency, is some positive move by the international community, possibly through the UN, to rescue the people from this crisis. Never mind the noises Mugabe makes and will always make about recolonisation, or the old artificial notions of sovereignty and imperialism. Mugabe's noises are just noises, well manufactured to draw world attention. This should not be allowed to scare the international community from the responsibility to protect (or to rescue) people under siege by tyrants like him."
	That is something that the Minister should be listening to.
	I shall conclude—because a lot of Members want to speak, although not from my side of the House—by saying that external commentators and donors have been very prescriptive. They are keen to tell Zimbabwean Opposition politicians what to do. They are always saying that the Movement for Democratic Change must find ways of taking back into the mainstream those who have chosen to leave. This overlooks the fact that that might not be what Zimbabweans want. Democracy is about diversity, and it seems odd that in a struggle against a one-party dictatorship, we should try to engineer a one-party Opposition. In recent weeks, the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe met a delegation from the Save Zimbabwe Campaign that included leaders of three political parties, including Morgan Tsvangirai, who showed that it was possible to work together and to live with diversity. That should be welcomed as a much-needed development for African politics.
	Finally, I would find it unbelievable if our Prime Minister, with all his commitment to Africa, were to allow any Minister of Her Majesty's Government to attend any conference that Mugabe was going to attend. We should be putting pressure on the Portuguese presidency so that they do not even think of asking him, let alone have discussions—about which I discovered in response to my question yesterday—to seek "a diplomatic solution". I am not interested in a diplomatic solution. I am interested in a solution that tells Mugabe right now that he will not be coming to any summit, and a solution that says to other African leaders that they will not be coming to any summit as it will not be happening if Mugabe is there. We need to get some of these African leaders to stop thinking that they can have it both ways: that they can talk to us about democracy, take our aid, expect us to stick up for them when there are problems in their country, and then turn a totally blind eye to what is going on, partly in their name, in Zimbabwe.
	I want Ministers to respond to these issues. Not being a cynical person, I could not possibly be cynical enough to suspect that the reason why the Foreign Secretary did not open the debate today was that he did not actually want to face up to making a commitment on the AU-EU summit. It is much easier to leave it to a junior Minister. I am not criticising the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who was put in a difficult position. The truth is that most hon. Members who are here today know a huge amount about Zimbabwe, which is why we are all here. Nevertheless, it is very sad that with the House about to go on leave for so many weeks, we cannot get a straight answer. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will give a straight answer and tell us whether the Prime Minister said what he is supposed to have said, according to  The Sunday Times —and if he did not say it, I hope that we will be told why not. An answer to that question by 6 o'clock would, I am sure, be greatly appreciated.
	My first ever visit to Africa was more than 30 years ago, and it was in the presence of the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He was then president of the National Union of Students and I was the vice-president, and we went to the African Commonwealth students conference in Ghana. I pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor, who, when he was Leader of the House, made sure that we secured this debate. It is rather ironic, however, that one of the reasons why he kept putting the debate off was that he wanted to have it at a time when the appropriate Minister would be here. We secured the debate today, and we all thought that that was fantastic. However, we do not even have a Minister for Africa in the House of Commons. We have some new Minister in the House of Lords whose name I have not yet learned to pronounce. I have yet to see him, and would not recognise him if he were sitting up there in the Gallery. I am amazed that as well as not having a Minister for Africa, we do not possess a Foreign Secretary who is prepared to debate Zimbabwe—even just to make the opening statement today. I must say that I am very sad about what has happened. Nevertheless, we are putting what needs to be said about Zimbabwe on the record.
	I mentioned first being in Africa with the NUS, and I would like to finish by quoting one of the leaders of the Zimbabwean students union ZINASU—Washington Katema, who visited us recently. He is so brave. It is just amazing how brave some of these people are to go back to Zimbabwe after being here, not even knowing whether they will be allowed through when they arrive. They always dread having their passports taken away from them. While he was at Westminster, he said:
	"How can a government that came from the premise of liberating its people treat its own children worse than the racist...regime of Ian Smith? It is sad to note the failure of our liberation movements in transforming the standards of people's lives. While clothed in empty Pan African rhetoric, it has not brought any meaningful improvement to people's lives. Mbeki should not dupe the pro-democratic movements of Zimbabwe into abandoning the most viable route to their emancipation, that is through mass actions and street struggles."
	I pay tribute to all such people in Zimbabwe, and I say to our Government that we should be leading the world on this issue. Forget the colonial tag. Get out there and make the EU and the UN take what is happening in Zimbabwe seriously.

John Barrett: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for her eloquent contribution to the debate. I also pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on this subject. The hon. Lady expressed concerns that I share, particularly the absence of the Foreign Secretary from today's debate. A number of probing questions have already been raised and it would have been good if they had been answered directly by the Foreign Secretary. We at least secured the promise in the opening statement of another debate later in the year. We hope that the House will be given more and clearer answers at that time.
	Zimbabwe shares the problems and misery of many African nations: famine, health problems such as HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, poverty, conflict, corruption, unemployment and too many guns. Other countries in the region, such as Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia, have similar problems. By and large, however, the Governments of those countries are working with their people, neighbours and outside donors to help to provide a solution. In Zimbabwe, however, as in Sudan, the Government are part of the problem.
	As was mentioned in the opening statement, leadership is a key component of the solution. There have not been enough Nelson Mandelas, and Zimbabwe has the complete opposite of an inspirational leader. We have heard today about some of the problems, which I shall try not to repeat in order to allow other Members to contribute to the debate. In Sudan, as we have heard, the problem is called genocide. Whatever people call the current situation in Zimbabwe, we want to hear what can be done about it, but we have not yet heard much about that from the Government. I hope that we will hear more in the summing-up.
	On this day of two parliamentary by-elections in the UK, it is appropriate to reflect on the state of democracy and civil society elsewhere in the world. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has mentioned the issue of asylum seekers. I had an asylum seeker from Zimbabwe in my constituency office some time ago. He was a political activist who had been arrested, beaten up, tortured and buried in a shallow grave. Fortunately, he and another person who were left in that shallow grave overnight managed to escape. That was the price that he paid for being an active opposition politician.
	It is difficult for us to calculate the dangers faced by those who seek asylum in the UK. That asylum seeker did not want to be here—his wife and young child were in Zimbabwe and he wanted to return there. He believed, however, that were he sent back to Zimbabwe, he would be killed. He said that he would rather kill himself and have a quick end in this country than suffer a long, slow torture and eventual death in Zimbabwe. It is an outrage that we often send back asylum seekers to face who knows what.
	In Zimbabwe, with the 2008 elections looming, the prospect of free and fair elections and the establishment of a real representative democracy look ever more distant and unlikely. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the opportunity to debate Zimbabwe. Other right hon. and hon. Members have eloquently detailed the scale of the devastation affecting that country. Famine is ever more widespread, with the situation seeming to get a little worse almost every week.
	It is also important, however, to remember what Zimbabwe was like prior to Robert Mugabe's destructive influence. In 1980, when Mugabe came to power, the average annual income in Zimbabwe was $950, and at that time a Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than an American dollar. By 2003, the average income was less than $400, and the Zimbabwean economy was in freefall. Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for nearly three decades, during which he has led it from being an impressive country with a hopeful future to probably the most dramatic peacetime collapse of any country in the world. Zimbabwe has gone from being one of the potential success stories of Africa to languishing at 151st out of 177 countries, in the United Nations Development Programme's human development index.
	While Mugabe may wish to blame Zimbabwe's problems variously on the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union, the reality is that the downfall of the country rests very much on his shoulders. Zimbabwe as a country was not destined to fail; it has failed because a corrupt leadership has persecuted its own people and poisoned its politics.
	In Zimbabwe today, hundreds of people continue to be arrested for participating or attempting to engage in peaceful protest. While the police have been accused of torturing human rights campaigners in custody, the independence of the judiciary has been compromised and there is little if any room for freedom of expression. Zimbabwe is under martial law in all but name.
	Political party activists, trade unionists, journalists, lawyers, students, the youth movement and women activists are all targets, as the Government continue to sponsor violence, torture and brutal oppression of its own citizens. This repression was shown in graphic detail to the world on 11 March with the beating of the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and many others. It is worth remembering that the film of that event made its way on to our screens only after being smuggled out of the country at great risk. We can only imagine the similar crimes of political oppression that go unreported and unseen.
	It is worth noting, on a small and probably rare point of optimism in the debate, that the regularity of the protests against the Government since February this year seem to be on the rise, as does the willingness of protesters to stand up against police oppression. On that point, I put on record our tribute to those Zimbabweans who are trying to oppose the brutal regime in the most difficult and hostile circumstances.
	While political freedoms are in decline, the utter collapse of the economy, which was mentioned earlier, and the resulting poverty are equally tragic. Others have mentioned the figures. The unemployment rate is more than 85 per cent. There is debate as to what the inflation level stands at. It is officially 4,530 per cent.; others say that it is above 1,000 per cent. Some analysts have predicted that it may reach 1 million per cent.
	It was recently claimed by a former US ambassador, Chris Dell, that
	"Historically, no regime has ever survived six or seven-digit inflation."
	Only time will tell whether that is the case with Zimbabwe. What is certain, though, is the dire consequences of that economic devastation for the people, with more than 4 million dependent on food aid because they cannot afford to buy their own food. Many survive only on remittances from abroad. For this, we should all pay tribute to Zimbabweans in this country who are playing their part to ease the suffering in their country. I would welcome the Minister's view on what we can do to help Zimbabweans return in an orderly way if and when there is regime change in Zimbabwe and once transition is under way so that they can help rebuild their country without jeopardising their immigration status in this country.
	I remember, as other hon. Members will, a time when Zimbabwe was the bread-basket of the region. Today it can no longer feed its own citizens and is using food as another political tool of repression and intimidation; the regime prioritises its supporters while denying food to those who stand up for democracy and human rights. To make matters worse, the Government continue to obstruct humanitarian aid agencies. The NGO Bill passed by the Government in 2004 may still be awaiting Mugabe's signature, but it is having a major impact on what NGOs are able to achieve. It is estimated that thousands, possibly 3,000, die from AIDS-related illnesses, yet Mugabe's regime is not willing to allow full access to the country to aid agencies that could help.
	The Foreign Secretary, who will no doubt read this debate, has been commendably robust in his dealings with Russia this week. However, if ever there was a regime with which Britain needed to flex its diplomatic muscles, it is surely Zimbabwe. Tough statements in this place will get us only so far. The time is right to look afresh at what we can do. I hope that we will hear at the end of the debate today an answer to some of the questions that have been posed today. I seek fresh assurances today that the Government are doing all that they can to bring pressure to bear on President Mugabe, both by encouraging solidarity among the international community and by urging our EU partners rigorously to enforce the economic sanctions and travel bans that are in place.
	I know that the previous Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister both expressed their intention to push for increased sanctions and targeted measures against Mugabe's regime. We would welcome that and would like to see a tightening of EU sanctions by considering further financial and travel restrictions. I would welcome an update from the Minister on any progress in that regard.
	Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential to ensure that the Mugabe regime cannot be represented at the summit in Portugal? There has been no clear answer to that and we hope that we will have one by the end of the debate. It would be a betrayal of the suffering of those in Zimbabwe if we were to give a platform and an air of legitimacy to Mugabe by allowing him to attend that summit. It would also call into question the credibility of our sanctions— something we cannot afford.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the importance of other African nations accepting that the crisis in Zimbabwe is the responsibility of all Africa, not just Zimbabweans. Along with the crisis in Sudan, Zimbabwe will be a key test of African co-operation and diplomacy. South Africa and SADC are key players and exert considerable influence in Zimbabwe. The condemnation by South Africa of the beatings of Opposition leaders in Zimbabwe earlier this year was welcome, but it was the first time I can recall any public condemnation of the human rights abuses of Mugabe and his regime.
	I would also like to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to persuade South Africa that refusing to acknowledge human rights abuses and political oppression is not in its best interest and is not their best approach to the problem.
	On the issue of not sweeping Mugabe's crimes under the carpet, I invite the Minister today to give fresh assurances that there is no prospect of any deal whereby in order to facilitate Mugabe's political demise, he might get some sort of deal letting him off the hook for all his crimes against humanity. I am sure the Minister would agree that that would be entirely unacceptable and I invite him to underline that view today.
	I said in my introduction that Mugabe was responsible for the current state of Zimbabwe. While few would dispute that, it does not mean that removing Mugabe will remove the corruption or reverse the economic disaster that he has created. Even when Mugabe goes—he will go eventually, and we will all welcome that day—and is no longer in power, we have to accept that Zimbabwe as a nation is simply not yet geared up for democracy. Other hon. Members may also have seen the comments of a former Zimbabwean trade Minister who said:
	"I don't think in the last fifty years that Zimbabwe has ever known democracy."
	I am afraid that Mugabe has created a political system in an image of himself and it is one that will outlast him.
	The emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change around 2000 provoked much optimism in Zimbabwe and among the international community about possible political change. However, since the split and the problems of 2005, the Opposition have almost imploded and although the two factions look likely to fight the 2008 elections under one banner, it has been a hugely damaging few years for both sides. Worryingly, both sides of the MDC have shown themselves to be unable to make a clean break with the traditions of post-colonial Zimbabwe. That mindset will not be removed when Mugabe is gone. The recent alleged coup and its aftermath give us an unpleasant picture of how a post-Mugabe power-struggle might unfold.

Kate Hoey: I should remind the hon. Gentleman that political parties in this country have split and broken up at various times and democracy has continued. He is being slightly too concerned about the so-called split.

John Barrett: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. However, the problems for political parties in Zimbabwe are so huge compared with parties considering splitting or making new alliances in this country. Here, there is almost an encouragement to shift political concentration. In Zimbabwe, the Opposition have enough problems anyway without internal splits. I wish them well in being an effective Opposition.
	Getting rid of Mugabe would be a start, but that is all. We may have to brace ourselves for the prospect of the situation getting worse before it gets better. On that point I would welcome the Minister's comments on the crucial issue of what aid we can provide in the event of Mugabe's downfall or a change in regime. It is important to ensure that we are able to respond rapidly and effectively to help the people of Zimbabwe. I would especially like to know what mechanisms for transition and reconstruction are in place and what guarantees on transition to a free and democratic Zimbabwe the Government and other donors would require.
	Zimbabwe is not at war, but it bears all the hallmarks of a conflict country. If there were a power transition in Zimbabwe, may I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to treat it as a post-conflict state in order to gather maximum support for a programme of sequenced humanitarian aid, stabilisation and reconstruction?

Chris Mullin: First, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for doing so much to keep the issue of Zimbabwe on the agenda in this place and elsewhere, and for the courageous manner in which she has pursued her cause. I also wish to say that I have some sympathy for the Minister, as she is only the latest in a series of hapless Foreign Office Ministers—I was myself one—who have been put up to deal with debates and answer questions on Africa even though they might never have set foot on that continent. That is because for the past two years and more the Africa Minister has sat in the House of Lords.
	I yield to no one in my respect for Lord Triesman, who succeeded me in that post; he is held in great esteem in the other place and was a most effective Africa Minister. However, it is a bit of a problem—I do not put it more strongly than that—that there is no Foreign Office Minister in the Commons who deals on a daily basis with African issues and can answer questions.
	The rapid turnover is also a bit of a problem. I should declare an interest: I was this Government's sixth Africa Minister, Lord Triesman was the seventh and Lord Malloch-Brown is the eighth. I remember an occasion when an African leader said to me that he had visited the United Kingdom four times but he had never met the same Africa Minister twice. That creates a problem for our relations with Africa. We say that we care about Africa, and we do—we take Africa seriously from the Prime Minister down—but the high turnover of Africa Ministers means that no one has a consistent grip on African issues.
	I spent two happy years as Africa Minister at the Foreign Office even though there were many enormous African issues to deal with—many of them bigger than Zimbabwe in terms of scale of catastrophe and human suffering, such as events in the Congo region, Angola, Sudan and Liberia. However, Zimbabwe occupied more of my time than any other issue—and I, like the Minister, had to come to the Dispatch Box to be lambasted by the Opposition for not doing enough, even though we were doing everything in our power to keep Zimbabwe on the international agenda.
	I am ambivalent about House of Commons debates on Zimbabwe. We have had a lot—although I acknowledge that not all have been held in the Chamber—and despite the fact that we all agree that Mugabe's rule has been catastrophic and that he has inflicted ruin on his people and that he should leave office as soon as possible, such debates to some extent play into his hands. Whether we like it or not, he has succeeded in convincing many Africans leaders and Africans that this is a bilateral dispute between himself and the former colonial power—although I am glad that that argument is now becoming threadbare.
	There is another problem with such debates. I mean no disrespect to any Member present, but usually only the usual suspects take part—I see that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), a veteran of many such debates, is smiling. In those debates Members propose prescriptions that frequently stop just short of a British invasion—although I have not heard such calls this afternoon. While that may enable us to go home feeling good about ourselves, it has not changed anything at all in Zimbabwe and has potentially done some damage in giving Mugabe yet another little stick with which to beat us. The painful truth is that our influence is limited. Yes, we can add or subtract a name from the EU travel ban or regret that Mugabe has been invited to the Lisbon summit. He should not have been, and I am confident that we did our best to stop him being invited—

Meg Munn: The invitations have not been issued yet.

Chris Mullin: In that case, I hope that Mugabe will not be invited, but I dare to contemplate the possibility that he will be. In any case, I know that we will strongly resist. Then there is the issue of whether the Prime Minister should go, or the Foreign Secretary or a junior Minister. The problem is that it is a summit about Africa and there are other equally important issues that require the attention of Ministers. We can also argue about whether our cricket team should be banned from touring, but the painful truth is that short of putting the hon. Member for Macclesfield in a gunboat and sending him up the Zambezi, there are no original solutions left that we could impose on that tragic situation.
	The bottom line is that, as has been said this afternoon, this is ultimately an African problem and it requires an African solution. I share the general disappointment at the silence of African leaders—with a handful of honourable exceptions—of the AU and of SADC. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, some of those have acted as cheerleaders. They have not merely been silent, but have acted disgracefully. I have had many conversations with African Heads of State and Government about Zimbabwe. Many of them have been very critical of Mugabe in private, but that has not translated in what they have said to the outside world. I remember meeting one Head of State immediately before he was due to go into a session at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria in 2004 and he was very robust in what he said about Mugabe. He was from a more or less neighbouring country and I suggested he make those points when he got into the meeting. He said that he would, but when I asked the then Prime Minister afterwards whether so-and-so had had anything to say on the issue, he said, "Not a peep." Unfortunately, that has happened fairly often.
	The Foreign Minister of a west African country once described the problem to me as the great liberator syndrome. He said that Africa was full of great liberators who have gone on to ruin their countries. I shall not name his country, but he added, "And we should know"—as indeed he should.
	As I have said, I was present at the Abuja CHOGM in 2004 and I am sorry to say that President Mbeki did not act as some sort of neutral mediator on the issue of whether Zimbabwe should be readmitted—it would have brought humiliation on us had that happened—but as an agent of Mugabe, and the issue dominated that summit to the exclusion of many other important issues. Even at this late stage, however, I hope that South Africa can be persuaded to intervene decisively to bring this catastrophe to an end. It is deeply in its interests to do so, as it has the best part of 2 million refugees from Zimbabwe and that must be having a serious impact on its economy. The South Africans are well aware of the problem and, as my hon. Friend said, some of them are beginning to speak out.
	My hon. Friend also pointed out that African leaders cannot have things both ways. They cannot make wonderful speeches at the AU about their love of democracy and so forth, then go home and rig their constitutions so that they get third or fourth terms in office and still expect the assistance of the outside world. Neither can they expect to invite the outside world to get involved in a cause such as South Africa's anti-apartheid movement—and they were very happy to have the outside world's interest in that—and then say that the things that are happening now on their own doorsteps are no one else's business. That is completely unacceptable.
	I look forward to the day when more African leaders come from the new generation. Rightly or wrongly, many people regard Mugabe as a hero of the liberation struggle, but not many more of his ilk are left. He is the last of that generation, so we will probably not face the same problem again.
	Whatever happens in Zimbabwe, the end is in sight. We can demand that the British Government do this or that, but the truth is that the person inflicting the most damage on the country and its regime is Mugabe himself. He is bringing it down, and it will fall around his ears unless a compromise is found that allows him to be evacuated into a safe retirement. His regime cannot survive the present levels of inflation, and little that we do or do not do will make any difference.
	The end is close, so we need to spend a little time talking about what comes next, because that will not be easy. When the time comes to try to stabilise Zimbabwe, we will have to work with some of the people who are mixed up with the present regime. That may be distasteful, but it is a fact of life and we have to think about it. I do not know whether or not Mr. Gono should be added to the travel ban, but in the end we will have to work with someone who knows about economics in Zimbabwe. I am not asserting that it will be him, merely raising it as a possibility that we should not exclude.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), sums up the debate, I hope that he will say something about how he imagines that the international community will be able to help when the regime falls. We are within sight of that and, although I appreciate that he will not be able to go into much detail, we need some assurance that plans are being laid and that we are talking with our EU and African partners, and with other international contacts, about what exactly will happen when the end comes. Obviously, we cannot be too prescriptive, as we do not know how the end will occur. We pray that the transition will be peaceful, with no more bloodshed or catastrophe, but we cannot rule such things out.
	The most we can say to the Zimbabweans is, "We are with you. We support you. We want your beautiful country to be put back together again, and we stand ready to help. You have not been forgotten." However, I hope that we do not get involved in too much posturing about who said what to whom, and who should or should not be banned. In the end, all that is fairly irrelevant to the big picture.
	We should welcome the fact that the end is coming. On many occasions, hon. Members of all parties, in the Government and on the Back Benches, have made their views clear. We must be ready to help when the time comes.

Malcolm Rifkind: We have heard some powerful speeches today, but I am sad to say that I must begin by questioning whether the Government were entirely wise in letting this debate go ahead. The whole point of holding a debate like this in the House of Commons should have been to send a powerful message to Zimbabwe, Mugabe, the AU and others about the British Government's determination in this matter. For whatever reason, however, the Foreign Secretary was unable to take part, and that has served to reduce the debate's value.
	In addition, the Minister's opening speech contained nothing new—I do not blame her for that—but what she was unable to say had the effect of putting us back a little. Far from being able to confirm the clear indication given to the press that the Prime Minister would not attend any summit attended by Mugabe, she refused to be drawn on the matter. There might be reasons for that, but given that there will probably be another debate on Zimbabwe later in the year, I have to question whether today's debate has been in the interests of that country's people.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), in his statement on Zimbabwe on 26 March, confirmed that the French had banned Mr. Mugabe from going to the French-African summit last February, and does he not think that the British Government, by declaring today that they will not attend the AU-EU summit, could do exactly the same thing as the French?

Malcolm Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There is a process not just of putting pressure on Mugabe, but of applying pressure within the European Union. Clear messages of that kind from the United Kingdom at this stage need to be given not just privately, but publicly if they are to have the full weight that we would wish.
	The whole issue of Zimbabwe, and, formerly, of Southern Rhodesia, has dominated debates in the House for many years. I could not help but recollect that my maiden speech in this Chamber, 33 years ago, was on what was then Southern Rhodesia. I can trump the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), because my first visit to Southern Rhodesia was in 1967. I lived and worked in what was then Salisbury and is now Harare for almost two years. I taught at the then university college of Rhodesia and got to know the country very well indeed.
	I have various recollections of that period. Even at that time, in the 1960s, the university was a multiracial university of black and white students. When I left the university, I lost touch with most of them. However, in 1979, when I first became a member of the Government, I received totally out of the blue a letter from one of my former black students, who wrote on headed notepaper from Harare: "Dear Mr. Rifkind, I am writing to congratulate you on your appointment as a junior Minister in the British Government. As you can see from the notepaper, I am now Foreign Minister." That was an interesting indicator of the unpredictability of public life.
	It is worth remembering that, at the time of the Lancaster House conference, there was great optimism—justifiably so—about the future prospects of what was becoming Zimbabwe. First, the transition from the Smith regime to an elected Government happened peacefully thanks to the consequences of the Lancaster House conference. Secondly, and equally importantly, the vast majority of the white minority had agreed to continue living in the country. They were prepared to accept that there was a prospect of a future for both black and white. We were seeing the emergence of a black middle class and the Zimbabwean economy began in a very strong way.
	I would go one stage further: part of the reason why we were optimistic was the attitude of Robert Mugabe at that time and for several years thereafter—with the terrible exception of what happened in Matabeleland. Right at the beginning, Mugabe accepted the advice he got from Samora Machel, who said, "Do not make the mistake we made in Mozambique when we thought we could do without the Portuguese and our economy collapsed." Mugabe accepted that advice and gave assurances to the white community. To a considerable extent, for the first few years he honoured those assurances, which provided a period of stability in the country.
	In addition, although Mugabe went through the rhetoric of "Comrade This" and "Comrade That" and meetings of the politburo in Harare, the economic policy that was pursued was not significantly different from the policy of his predecessors, which also enhanced the stability of the country. Furthermore, I pay credit to the fact that he allowed Ian Smith—who had locked Mugabe up for many years in Rhodesian prisons—not only to remain at liberty but to sit in the Parliament of Zimbabwe, albeit obviously without any real power.
	In those early years, there was some practical reason to believe that, whatever Mugabe's background and innermost ideological thoughts, he had realised what the interests of his country needed at that time. So why did things change in such a fundamental way? It was essentially because the policies being pursued, although moderate, were increasingly unpopular within Zimbabwe and Mugabe realised that, far from being able to assume that elections would give him power for the rest of his life, free elections would drive him out of power. We all know what the consequences of that have been. As a number of hon. Members have said, instead of Zimbabwe being the bread-basket of Africa, it has become the basket-case of Africa, in a very depressing and miserable fashion.
	What flows from that? There have been two external tragedies that have added to the woes of Zimbabwe. The first is the attitude of the African Union. It is a matter of considerable sadness that the African Union, which was created in order not to continue with the foolish attitudes and priorities of the old Organisation of African Unity, has copied some of its worst mistakes. We see that most vividly in the case of its attitude towards Zimbabwe.
	The assumption that criticism of Mugabe's record on human rights is evidence of a colonial mentality is increasingly absurd, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly emphasised. The United Kingdom has been equally determined to ensure that it condemns and brings to the forefront of public attention human rights abuses in any country in the world, including those with which we have no colonial links. Indeed, I recall dealing with the banning of Solidarity in Poland when I was in the Foreign Office. When I insisted on meeting members of Solidarity at the British embassy in Warsaw, General Jaruzelski publicly accused me and the British Government of treating Poland as if it was a former British colony, thus implying that this is something that all British Governments inevitably find themselves doing. The African Union needs to reconsider how it can best serve the interests of its continent and people.
	The other deep disappointment is South Africa. I am wrong to say that; it is President Thabo Mbeki. People such as Nelson Mandela have been unequivocal in their condemnation of Mugabe. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, "We in South Africa should be ashamed of ourselves because we are not bringing more pressure on Mugabe." Mbeki should reflect on the fact if he looks at the history of his country and region that it was only when P. W. Botha, his white predecessor, decided to withdraw support from Ian Smith that the Government of Southern Rhodesia were forced to accept that the whole unilateral declaration of independence experiment had totally failed. That was when steps began, first involving Muzorewa and then leading to Lancaster House. South Africa is not just a neighbour of Zimbabwe. As we know from historical experience, it is the one country that can have an impact on what any Government of Zimbabwe can contemplate at any time that is not only profound, but decisive. If Thabo Mbeki declines to use such authority and power, he has personal responsibility for the continuing suffering of Zimbabwe and the implications of that for his country, because 2 million or 3 million Zimbabwean refugees are living in South Africa, which inevitably has a damaging impact on that country's economy.
	Where do we go from here? What are the prospects for the United Kingdom or other countries being able to bring some pressure? Let me turn to the African Union-European Union summit. It is not unreasonable to point out that it is seven years since there has been an AU-EU summit, which is a long time. Such a summit would be desirable, but we have waited seven years, so no one should be too alarmed if we have to wait a few more, if the alternative is to destroy all credibility in the policy that the EU has adopted to try to deal with the problem of Mugabe and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Africa has more to lose than Europe if European-African co-operation is not enhanced. It will benefit most if a summit takes place and that leads to improvements in the economic and trading relationships between Europe and Africa.
	Everything now centres on the question of whether Mugabe will be invited to attend the summit. Some rather disturbing remarks have been made. Mr. Sócrates, the Prime Minister of Portugal, has said:
	"Appropriate diplomatic formulae will be found",
	thus suggesting that there is a method of inviting Mr. Mugabe not as the President of Zimbabwe, but as a simple participant in an intergovernmental conference, as if that would somehow resolve the difficulty. On 3 July,  The Daily Telegraph reported an unnamed British official as saying of Mugabe:
	"The issue of whether he is there or not should not detract from the substance or overshadow the summit".
	If those words are taken literally, they are very disturbing. That British official could not have got it more wrong. There can be no doubt that whether Mugabe is there or not will totally dominate the summit and preclude any progress on other issues.
	If Mugabe is to attend, it is not a question of his simply being issued with an invitation. The EU has a ban on Mr. Mugabe visiting EU countries. I have with me a copy of the  Official Journal of the European Union. The rules permit exceptions to be made, but they clearly say that any member state can object if a country—presumably Portugal in this case—wishes to get an exemption to allow Mr. Mugabe to visit Lisbon. If an objection is made, a vote under qualified majority voting is required for an exemption to be made.
	The very least that we ask—we expect the Minister to respond to this point later today—is an assurance that if it is proposed that we depart from the rules banning Mugabe from visiting an EU country, the UK will object, and will require a vote to take place. My view, and I suspect the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that even if a majority voted to invite him, through some mistaken judgment, the British Government should have already made it clear that if Mugabe is in Lisbon, the British Government will not be there—and I do not just mean the Prime Minister; there would be little impact if he was absent but the Foreign Secretary was there.
	The United Kingdom should make it abundantly clear that the UK will not take part in an EU-AU summit if Mr. Mugabe is present in Lisbon, but that has to be made clear well in advance, so that other member states know the kind of stakes for which we are playing. It is important to play for very high stakes, because the sadness is that if the African Union will not champion the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, and if the European Union starts deserting the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, who is left? Who would speak out for their requirements if that depressing situation arose?
	I will not speak for much longer, because I want to allow hon. Friends and other hon. Members to speak, but I make one final point: the past 30 or 40 years have been a difficult period in the history of Africa, partly for reasons beyond the control of many African states. Most states across the world came about when a nation was already in existence. The Italian nation existed, and it created an Italian state. The German nation existed before there was a German state. In Africa, because of the colonial experience, it happened the other way round: states were created in the 1960s, but for the most part they had artificial borders, and there was no sense of national identity. That has made it very difficult for many African countries to realise their aspirations, and that is one of the reasons why Africa has so many failed states, even compared with other parts of the world.
	Even taking that background into account, the sad and terrible fact is that Zimbabwe was one of the countries least exposed to such concerns, because it had a degree of homogeneity. The Ndebele and Shona populations were mostly to be found within the borders of the old Southern Rhodesia, and the creation of the state of Zimbabwe followed a greater natural logic than many other African countries, as it was between the Limpopo and the Zambezi. In addition, unlike most of sub-Saharan Africa, because of the Southern Rhodesian period, Zimbabwe inherited an impressive infrastructure, including a working civil service, experience of the rule of law, a free press, and various other instruments of government. It should have seen that as a great benefit and advantage. That has been squandered; that is the tragedy of the people of Zimbabwe, and the personal responsibility of Robert Mugabe.
	The British Government's responsibility is more important than perhaps it ought to be. The African Union is declining to exercise its responsibility, the South African President will not, I fear, change his view, and other countries around the world do not have our knowledge or experience of the reality of Zimbabwe. If the British Government are to carry the influence and the impact that they ought to, there must be greater clarity of policy. There must be a willingness to exercise diplomacy, and not just privately, in the corridors of the EU. There must be public exposition of the policy, because in the current rather difficult situation, every available weapon must be at our disposal and fully used. The development of public opinion is a weapon that can be used only if we are prepared to be robust, not only privately but publicly, and we could do a lot worse than to start on that course about an hour and a half from now.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He clearly has considerable experience of what is now Zimbabwe and what was, when he first went there, Southern Rhodesia. Although I cannot go back quite as far as he does, I was there a number of times during the early and middle 1970s. I was also paying a visit to what was then Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979, as the interim Government of that country under Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Chief Chirau and others flew off to London to the Lancaster House talks.
	One conversation sticks firmly in my mind. The then President of Zimbabwe Rhodesia was a Matabele, President Gumede. In the grounds of Government house, over a wonderful cup of tea, he turned to me very solemnly and said, "Mr. Winterton, I am sad. If only the free civilised western world would allow our country to solve our problems our way, we would produce the right result." He continued, "As it is, my Government has left Salisbury", as it was then, "as the Government, but it will come back from Lancaster House as nothing." I thought that that was significant. He went on to say, "That will give a very clear message to the people of our country that the Government that was the Government is not the Government or the party for which they should vote."
	We know the result. What my right hon. and learned Friend said about the first few years of Robert Mugabe's Government was correct. Yes, it was stable. There were 20 reserved seats for the whites in the Zimbabwe Parliament. Yes, he sought to maintain stability and perhaps even to practise what Archbishop Tutu recommended—reconciliation. We all felt that perhaps there would be success and prosperity for that wonderful country. What happened has been brushed over. I intervened from a sedentary position on the Minister when she said that the first 10 years were all brightness, prosperity and goodness. She overlooked the slaughter of 20,000 Matabele by the Korean-trained 5th brigade of Mr. Mugabe's army. That should not be underestimated or forgotten. It was genocide. Perhaps it indicated what Mr. Mugabe might ultimately do, and we know what he has done.
	The contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend to the debate was extremely helpful. He sketched the macro-historical background, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who made a philosophical and very helpful speech, in which he said that the problems of Zimbabwe can be solved only in Africa by African nations. He is absolutely right. My right hon. and learned Friend stressed the role that Thabo Mbeki and the Government of South Africa can play. President Mbeki can switch on and switch off the future of Mr. Mugabe and his Administration in Zimbabwe.
	I pay tribute to the statesmanship of the first democratically elected President of the Republic of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. He has made his views clear not only publicly, but as I know from conversations, privately to Mr. Robert Mugabe. If only Nelson Mandela were still in charge as President of the Republic of South Africa, that country might be playing an even more positive, helpful rule in seeking to bring about change in Zimbabwe.
	Change must be brought about, because the problems facing Zimbabwe are absolutely desperate. In the three years that have passed since our last full debate on that country, the situation has deteriorated dramatically. As the Minister and other hon. Members know, I have personally pressed the Government for a debate on the tragedy in Zimbabwe for more than a year. It is now clear to all those who know anything about the country that unless external influences force Robert Mugabe to back down and accept change, he will end up destroying what is left of his country—which is not saying very much. Agriculture is operating at 20 per cent. capacity, and tourism, hotels and hospitality at about the same rate. Industry is operating at 50 per cent. capacity. Mining is still operating at about 80 per cent. capacity, but, sadly, is beginning to decline rapidly. Zimbabwe's currency and stock market are absolutely worthless.
	The appalling humanitarian, political and economic situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. With Operation Murambatsvina leaving 700,000 people destitute, more than 4 million people at risk of starvation and surviving on food aid, and political repression continuing apace, not least because of the farm clearances that have devastated food production from its once rich lands, we all know that the situation is desperate. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the operations relating to clearance and repression were carried out with ruthless efficiency regardless of financial or human consideration, and they have been stunningly successful. The Mugabe regime got away with both operations: in the case of the white farmers and their employees and staff, because they were easy targets; and in the case of the clearance of informal housing in Harare because, sadly, the United Nations system has no teeth or courage, and the question might have been posed, "Who cares about urban slum dwellers anyway?"
	Political repression in Zimbabwe is rife, and there are reports that it is still on the rise. Amnesty International says that the security forces are increasing their attacks on human rights groups and student opposition leaders. The Harare Government have proposed the Interception of Communications Bill, which will allow the military, intelligence services, police and the office of the President to monitor e-mail correspondence, internet access and even telephone conversations. The departing United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, who has already been quoted two or three times, left no one in any doubt about the fragility of the situation. He said that the "economic madness" made it impossible for Mugabe to remain in power for very much longer. That was, to some extent, the message of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
	The other threat to Mr. Mugabe would be a palace coup to replace him as ZANU-PF's leader and Zimbabwe's President. The Senate elections of 26 November 2005 were a cynical act of political patronage designed to consolidate ZANU-PF's authoritarian grip on Zimbabwe. Regrettably, the main Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, split into two factions in October 2005. However, I am not sure that that is necessarily important. I believe that come next year's elections, the Opposition parties may well come together to oppose Mr. Mugabe. That was certainly suggested to me by the meetings with representatives of political parties, churches, youth and students that the hon. Member for Vauxhall and I attended.
	The development of Africa as a priority for western democracies has grown radically in recent years, not least because of the efforts of our Prime Minister. However, western democracies must recognise that aid alone can achieve little and that African Governments are expected to deliver their side of the bargain through a commitment to democracy, good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The reality, however, is that Zimbabweans suffer from an unemployment rate of more than 70 per cent. Some people say that it is even higher—it could be 80 per cent. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) talked about the inflation rate, which is estimated to be anything between 1,500 per cent. and 4,000 per cent. Some people say that it is even higher than that.
	Mr. Mugabe has said that his Government would ruthlessly take over companies that ignore their call to reduce prices. That has been made worse by the police, who use those new opportunities, in their regulatory and checking role, to indulge in mass looting. Mr. Mugabe said:
	"We would take over all companies which continue to increase prices. If they want to be rough, we will show them that we are even rougher".
	The Zimbabwean Government have drafted soldiers and police to help enforce a ban on price increases, which they say are unjustified and meant to incite popular revolt against Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Would hon. Members believe that the Government would go to the lengths of setting up hotlines, encouraging people to report cases of alleged overpricing or hoarding of some basic goods? As a result, many important products have disappeared from shop shelves. In the past few days and weeks, we have seen more evidence that the ZANU-PF regime does not have a clue about how to manage the country and its economy. Having destroyed much of the productive sector, it is now embarking on a headlong rush to take over what is left and completely destroy whatever reputation Zimbabwe had as a destination for investment in any shape or form.
	After months of speculation about their taking over of 51 per cent. of all mining companies, the Government have announced that they will take over 51 per cent. of all public companies, and any others that they think are attractive targets. That 51 per cent. figure means that control of management and all corporate policies are taken over by the Government, so that foreign and local investors who hold stocks in such companies will have no say over who manages them or what they do with their money.
	It signifies the tragedy of that country and the problems facing its good people that prices went up 100 per cent. in April, and 200 per cent. in May. In June, they started doubling every week; this month, they will accelerate even further. Already, firms are closing their doors while they work out what to charge, and some are simply planning to close until the current situation is over. The US ambassador said last week that he would not be surprised if Zimbabwe hit 1.5 million per cent. inflation by the end of the year. Inflation is a symptom of a disease called bad macro-economic policy and such policies are exclusively in the hands of the state. The Reserve Bank and the Ministry of Finance are driving inflation in Zimbabwe. One cannot run a budget deficit of 60 per cent. of GDP and not expect the currency to collapse.
	It is a matter of huge concern that the African Union, which has been sensibly referred to in the debate, the Southern African Development Community, and South Africa in particular, have failed to take a strong enough stand against the reprehensible Mugabe regime. I am concerned by reports from human rights organisations that migrants from Zimbabwe are vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse in the Republic of South Africa. Furthermore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea said, more emigration of Zimbabweans to South Africa could cause considerable difficulties in that country. Perhaps it might even put the football World cup in that country in jeopardy.
	I am sure that the Under-Secretary has considered early-day motion 1870, which I supported and which has been mentioned many times in the debate. It expresses deep concern that plans are under way to invite the Zimbabwean Government to the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who will reply to the debate, listens to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea about the EU regulation and decision. If Portugal means to invite Zimbabwe to attend the conference, it must get permission and exemption from the regulation. I hope that it does not because I believe that Mr. Mugabe's presence—or even that of other leading representatives of Zimbabwe—at the summit will have a damaging effect.
	Robert Mugabe, who appeared to start so well and was described as a freedom fighter and a liberator of his country, now systematically denies Zimbabweans rights and destroys their livelihoods, without the slightest regard for democratic principles and fundamental human rights. The argument that all African countries need to be invited to the summit in Lisbon to ensure its success is fallacious.
	The UK Government must condemn, in the strongest terms, the Mugabe dictatorship for its relentless oppression of the Zimbabwean people and express their profound disappointment at the refusal of the important regional actors, such as the African Union, the South African Development Community and Southern Africa, to take a more robust stance against the Harare regime's abuses, and at their failure to insist that the Zimbabwean Government should mend their ways and restore democracy and the rule of law. In my view, the international community has not exercised as much pressure and influence as it should. Consequently, Mr. Mugabe has been able to get away with the great suffering that he has brought to his people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is sitting in front of me, and he has taken a particular interest in the next subject that I want to mention. Mr. Mugabe's Government's abusive practices, such as eviction and the clearance of informal housing, which has disrupted access to health care, undermine Zimbabwe's progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Inadequate social welfare policies have further heightened the vulnerability of AIDS patients. It is a matter of huge concern that, as my hon. Friend knows, Zimbabwe is currently experiencing one of the world's worst HIV/AIDS epidemics, with more than 3,200 people a week dying from the disease.
	Will the Government call on the Zimbabwean Government to take urgent action to improve access to antiretroviral treatment, which—I regret to say—only some 8 per cent. of those infected with the disease receive? The current water and power shortages have crippled the delivery of health services in most hospitals and clinics throughout the country. They cannot operate without clean water and power.
	The EU rightly refuses to recognise the legitimacy of the recently created Senate in Zimbabwe because a mere 15 per cent. of Zimbabweans participated in that discredited election process, the result of which was, of course, guaranteed beforehand to favour ZANU-PF. The EU has also called on Robert Mugabe to comply with his promise to stand down.

John Bercow: In addition to the escalating AIDS epidemic, millions of women face problems in gaining access to sanitary products. Is my hon. Friend aware that one pack of such products costs 50 per cent. of a woman's salary? There are desperate shortages. Imports are required, and should we not pay tribute to the Dignity! Period campaign, which is desperately trying to get help to the women who so obviously need it?

Nicholas Winterton: As ever, my hon. Friend draws a critical statistic to the House's attention. I pay tribute to that organisation, but the case he describes is inevitable given the prevailing circumstances in Zimbabwe.
	The EU has called on Robert Mugabe to comply with his promise to stand down, sooner rather than later—that would be the largest single step towards reviving Zimbabwe's society, politics and the economy—and to commence positive transitional negotiations between ZANU-PF, the MDC parties and other opposition movements. I hope that we shall seek to bring all parties together in every way possible. We do not want to encourage civil war or internal conflict; we want to bring all the parties together. I am aware from my contacts in the country that a number of members of ZANU-PF know that Mr. Mugabe's days are numbered and would like to get together with the other political parties and ensure a peaceful change.
	Regrettably, the EU's targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe and certain individuals in the country have failed to have the desired impact on those directly responsible for Zimbabwe's impoverishment and the hardships endured by its people. The Government should call on the European Council to ensure that all member states rigorously apply the existing restrictive measures, including the travel ban, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea highlighted, and the arms embargo. They should err on the side of exclusion rather than weak-willed permissiveness.
	The Government should call on the Council to expand the scope of sanctions and further enlarge the list of individuals, which I understand currently stands at 120, so that it encompasses many more Zimbabwean Ministers, deputies and governors, executives, including the governor of the Reserve Bank, ZANU-PF members, supporters and workers and their family members, as well as business men and other prominent individuals associated with the party.
	The international community has a duty to call on China, in particular, and other countries that continue to supply weaponry and other support to the Mugabe regime to desist and join the international community in its efforts to bring about change for the betterment of the people of Zimbabwe. I can only deplore the fact that at the same time as the United Nations is appealing for $257 million in humanitarian aid for Zimbabwe, Mr. Robert Mugabe and his Government are completing the procurement of 12 K-8 military aircraft from China, at a cost of $240 million. The Zimbabwean army has announced the purchase of 127 vehicles for senior officers, with another 194 to be purchased over the coming months. The Zimbabwean Government can buy weaponry, vehicles and aircraft, but they cannot provide food, power and electricity for their people.
	I have visited Zimbabwe many times. They are a lovely and wonderful people, be they Mashona or Matabele. I believe that they deserve better from the civilised world than they are getting.
	I shall try to speak in the next debate on Zimbabwe, which the Minister promised would take place in the autumn, but my final words in this debate will be to ask whether all parties in this place, and all civilised countries, could work together to produce an exit package for Mr. Robert Mugabe, so that we can save the people of that country from further suffering. Yes, a lot of people would like to see him hanging from the nearest lamp post, but I am not interested in that. I am interested in getting him away from Zimbabwe so that we can restore stability, progress and a sound economy, and bring an end to the suffering of the wonderful people of that country.

James Duddridge: One always hesitates before rising to follow an excellent speech by a senior colleague such as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). I hope that he will not mind my pointing out that when he was first experiencing what was then Rhodesia, I was still in short trousers. I hope, too, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) will not take umbrage if I point out that when he was teaching there, I was not even born. I also hope that if I serve the House for anything like as long as they have done, young Members of Parliament coming into the House will have a little more respect for their elders.
	As much as a 35-year-old with two years' experience of the House can be said to have a long-standing interest in a subject, I do have such an interest in Zimbabwe. I went there in my early 20s as part of my work for the British bank, Barclays, in a number of southern African countries. That interest has been renewed by my representing Rochford and Southend, East, which has a Zimbabwean community of more than 250, as it was an asylum distribution centre. I am sure that hon. Members will not mind if I commend to them the work of Washington Ali, who represents the Zimbabwean community here and provides me with a constant feed of information on the country, on which I will draw heavily in this speech. I shall also draw heavily on the work of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, which is so ably chaired by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Its meetings are truly invaluable.
	Unlike some Members, I am optimistic about Zimbabwe. I find Zimbabweans to be among the most optimistic, entrepreneurial, go-getting individuals in the region, or even the world. There is a bright future for Zimbabwe; it is a post-Mugabe future. I have not visited Harare for more than 10 years, but I look forward to receiving an invite from a democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe in the near future.
	In order for Zimbabwe to have a new democratic Government, however, Mugabe has to go. I would love to see him hanging from a lamppost, but that is not the way in which we want to move forward. I want to see him brought to justice for what he has done in Matabeleland and in his entire country. That is not necessarily the most important issue, however. Washington Ali and other Zimbabweans tell me that they want justice, but not at the price of one more day of a failed state. If providing Mugabe with a soft landing results in peace, democracy, stability and a strong economic foundation for Zimbabwe being achieved earlier, we must go for that.
	Barclays bank, for which I worked, is still in Zimbabwe. It has been there since 1912 and employs more than 1,000 people. I congratulate it and the many South African companies that are sticking with their local communities, local shareholders and local employees in these hard times. Those companies will be instrumental in bringing forward the changes that will be needed for the new Zimbabwe.
	Politics is only part of the solution. As politicians, we tend to focus on it a bit more than we focus on the economics. As an ex-banker, however, I would like to focus a bit more on the economics. We have heard about the inflation in Zimbabwe. Speaking to business men there, I understand that the rate is about 8,000 per cent. It is impossible to understand such figures. Washington Ali tells a story of someone who filled up their car with fuel, and two and a half weeks later, having managed to find another filling station that still had fuel, found that it now cost three times as much.
	Operation Slash Prices is further damaging the economy. I have with me an e-mail from a business man in Bulawayo, who had
	"just come back from witnessing an operation by the so-called Task Force at Makro"—
	a large South African company that operates throughout southern Africa. The e-mail continues:
	"The Task Force arrived mid morning and on a totally arbitrary basis, it ordered them to halve the prices of TVs, Fridges, Deep Freezers"
	and a number of other products, including a "30 tonne load" of soap. It was a bizarre scene. Effectively, these shops were being looted. They were forced to sell goods on a preferential basis to supporters of ZANU-PF, who would be allowed in to buy those goods. Those shops are not going to restock. Speaking to employees, this business man said that there was concern that many jobs had effectively disappeared. Those are not the actions of a rational man, and they are not actions that will help save Zimbabwe.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is no longer in his place. I had a conversation with him a few days ago in which he made some of the same points. He feared that we were rehearsing the same arguments time and again. However, I believe that things are changing on a daily basis. Even in last weekend's press, there was some positive news about new thinking and new ideas coming out of southern Africa.
	The idea of bringing Zimbabwe into the rand common monetary area is particularly important. It has already worked in Swaziland with the emalangeni, in Namibia with the dollar, in Lesotho with the loti—and it has even worked in Botswana, where although there is not an exact pegging to that economy, there is an unofficial relationship between the two and a rate of approximately 70 per cent. Bringing Zimbabwe into that zone will enforce a much greater degree of macro-economic stability. In reality, most people do not use Zim dollars; they use US dollars, South African rand, and to a lesser degree, pounds sterling. If Mugabe goes and there is regime change, that is something very immediate that can happen. However, it will not be a matter of SADC support alone. It will take international support and international money to achieve. The Government need to be prepared for those changes and agree informally with SADC the level of support that they will provide when called upon.
	I may be reading too much into what the Minister said. She chose her words carefully when she said that no formal discussion was going on with SADC about the rand common monetary area. The issue was widely trailed in South African newspapers, and discussions with other countries were mentioned. I very much hope that the British Government are involved in some informal discussions. I was pleased to hear the governor of the central bank of South Africa say that there was a long way to go before bringing Zimbabwe into the rand-dollar area. In saying that, he was nevertheless recognising that we have started to make some progress towards a potential economic solution for Zimbabwe.
	That will be good for Zimbabwe not only economically, but politically. One of the key ways in which Mugabe supports his regime is through foreign exchange deals with the central bank at a preferential rate; he and his ZANU-PF Ministers and members then sell that hard currency on the open parallel market, making vast profits. As well as providing economic stability, this action will help to remove one of the levers of Mugabe's oppression and corruption.
	I would like further to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) about the governor of the central bank in Zimbabwe. There is no way that that gentleman will play any part in any economic future for Zimbabwe. We know that he is not welcome in the UK. I recognise that we need to work through the EU if at all possible. However, I would be much happier if, in the event that a travel ban cannot be obtained through the EU, the UK had the courage of its convictions and imposed a travel ban in any case.
	It is important to prepare for change. When Mugabe goes, things will not get better on day one. Electricity is still likely to go out and foodstuffs will not immediately flow into the country—so, very quickly, we could find that the new regime rather than Mugabe is blamed for those failures. We need to provide support to SADC to plan for that change, and to ensure that food, fuel and electricity are supplied. We need to assist a new Zimbabwe to rebuild a civil society, because, piece by piece, Mugabe has broken down all the institutions of civil society, so that he has not simply the office of President, but the only power that there is.
	We need to send the right message, which means working with the African Union, the European Union, the South African Development Community, Thabo Mbeki, and Festus Mogae in Botswana. I was deeply disappointed by the lack of strength in the Minister's earlier comments about the summit in Portugal. I urge other Members to sign early-day motion 1870, calling for Mugabe not to be invited. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea mentioned an article in  The Sunday Times. It is not just civil servants who are briefing, because an unnamed Minister is quoted as saying:
	"You can be sure Mugabe will get himself photographed shaking Gordon's hand. There's no way that's going to happen...If it means the meeting cannot go ahead, so be it. It's already been delayed for years."
	I hope that in summing up, the Minister will make it clear that that position has not been diluted since the weekend press report, as that would be a step backwards.
	I fully support the EU travel ban being extended to family members. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, sporting relationships are critical. The Government should be sending a much tougher message, not only on cricket but on the World cup in South Africa in 2010, making it clear that free nations are not prepared to play practice games in neighbouring Zimbabwe.
	Everyone would want to congratulate Edinburgh university on revoking Mugabe's honorary degree. Just before the changeover in government, I wrote to a previous Foreign Office Minister to inquire about Mugabe's honorary knighthood, granted in 1994. I was unclear whether the Government are able or willing to revoke that knighthood.

Nicholas Winterton: They can.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend indicates from a sedentary position that the Government can revoke the knighthood. In that case, I am sure that Members of the House who have spoken in the debate, who know a lot about Zimbabwe, will call on the Government to do that with great haste.
	Another window of opportunity is coming up with the Kampala Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It is essential that Zimbabwe be on the agenda. The President of Zimbabwe might have taken his country out of the Commonwealth, but the people of Zimbabwe remain in the Commonwealth. We should use the opportunity of Kampala to advance their cause and make it clear to other African leaders who are critical in private that they need to be critical in public, to make the change that is sorely needed.

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who has added new dimensions to the debate and is a respected member of the all-party group. It is also a great pleasure to follow many right hon. and hon. Members who have shown the passion that exists in the House on this issue.
	As a relatively new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a very difficult job in facing Members who have great knowledge and understanding of the issue. I did not attack her, because she made the best of that job. If I were her, however, I would have a serious word with my officials when I got back to King Charles street. They did not predict the buttons that the House wanted pressed today, and did not equip her properly to enter the debate.
	I shall not go through many of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I find it hard to keep an even tone, because it is difficult for me, as it is for many people who know and love Zimbabwe, to find the adjectives and superlatives to describe what has happened there and those responsible for it.
	I believe that, while cruelty and terror are a daily feature of what purports to be government in Zimbabwe, a vicarious cruelty is being visited on the people of Zimbabwe by those in state houses and presidential residences across Africa, whose refusal even to recognise the almost genocidal brutality of the Mugabe regime is ever present. Why do they do this? It is hard to have the optimism that some people have shown in the House today for the future of Africa when that ambivalence at best or connivance at worst exists in some of the African Governments. It is hard to believe that Africa can really move on to where we, the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister desire it to move—a more benevolent and economically successful world—when such attitudes persist.
	Like ripples in a pond, this vicarious cruelty extends beyond the continent of Africa. It extends into the chancelleries of Europe. Countries waive or talk about waiving entry bans on Mugabe and a coterie of his supporters to allow this pariah to strut on the world stage. That has been much discussed today. It is hard to overestimate the value that Mugabe puts on being able to strut that stage. It is important that the Minister understands that and comments on it when he replies.
	Let me set in context my knowledge and understanding of Zimbabwe. I, like many hon. Members, have travelled widely in that part of Africa. My first visit to Zimbabwe was during what one could call its halcyon days. I travelled in my 20s with a liberal naivety; I actually believed that it could work. I saw wonderful work being done by people who had been implacable enemies only a year or two before. There was a sense of optimism among white farmers, people who had been in the liberation struggle and people who had been stuck in the middle, who were the majority.
	I worked with people from this country. The late Black Rod, Sir Edward Jones, who tragically died a few weeks ago—I mourn his death—set up the British military advisory team and worked with the Zimbabwean army to make it into a responsible organisation. At that time, there were rumblings about what was going on in Matabeleland. I saw lorry loads of North Korean troops entering the country and I should have seen then that things were going to go wrong—as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has just described, they certainly did.
	I could describe many more of my experiences in Zimbabwe, but one of the most telling was my visit during the parliamentary elections in 2000 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was then the shadow Foreign Secretary. We worked our way around the country trying to keep ahead of the Central Intelligence Organisation. We encountered Movement for Democratic Change candidates coming out of the darkness to meet with us. I found the experience intensely moving. We all come across courage in our lives and in our constituencies, but more often than not it is displayed as a result of an incident, illness, action or whatever. Here was premeditated courage. These were people who had made a decision to stand for Parliament, to make a stand or to be active politically, knowing that it would put their and their family's lives in danger. That was a tremendous thing to experience. It is wonderful that so many people in Zimbabwe are prepared still to do that. I have worked with the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust here in London and been to Washington to see the wonderful work there to bring pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe.
	As has been said in the debate, nothing will change while Mugabe remains in power. Only his removal will stop Zimbabwe from collapsing into a fully fledged failed state. This is where I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who seemed to adopt a rather more laissez-faire approach. He seemed to say that change was happening, change would come, that we could not influence it from here and that we should more or less let it happen. I may be misrepresenting him; if so, I apologise. I believe that there is an urgent need for more action because Mugabe and the coterie of thugs around him are totally focused on one date; 2008, the year of the presidential elections. He will do all he can to win those elections.
	There are three pinch-points on the Mugabe regime. First, there is the international community: the UK, the Commonwealth, the EU, the G8 and the UN. Much has already been said about their influence and what they can do. Then there are African leaders, particularly those of SADC countries. I have already touched on that. But the one on which I will dwell is the people of Zimbabwe, who provide the best possible opportunity to bring about the change we all want.
	I achieved a certain notoriety last week—it is a badge I wear with honour—by being attacked in the  Zimbabwe Herald about a comment I had made about wanting the people of Zimbabwe to rise up and remove Mugabe. I spoke about wanting to be there for the Ceausescu moment; we remember Ceausescu making a speech to what he thought was an adoring crowd who suddenly turned on him, at which point his face went chalk-white with fear. We know what happened after that.
	I am not saying that I want the people of Zimbabwe to rise up in a bloody coup, because they have suffered enough. I want this to be brought about quietly and as expeditiously as possible. However, the people who will pull the plug on this despot are those who are closest to him. I will call them the coterie. Some refer to them as the big men—the likes of Emerson Mnangagwa, Mujuru and others. They can be made to feel the chill wind of their wealth and position threatened by the intransigence and actions of Mugabe.
	Many of these people and their families are still able to travel. Many are able to use the shopping malls of the west to spend their ill-gotten gains. Most will have family members studying in Europe, particularly in the UK, and in the United States, or are using these countries for health care—all at a time when education and health care are denied to the people whom these characters have impoverished.
	Some time ago I raised with the current Lord Chancellor the possibility of extending the travel ban and sending back people who are studying at our universities because they are the children, cousins or brothers of those people. I cannot remember his exact works, but he said that one cannot visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons. I think we can and the time has come when we must. It is only by putting that sort of pressure on the regime can we make these people go back, at least to witness, if not experience, the misery that is going on in their country, which is being brought about by those who have financed their trips to places such as this country.
	Wealth and status is all to the coterie, so it is entirely legitimate for us to seek to remove the benefits of education and health care in this country from these people in whatever form they are taking. I also want the business men—whether in South Africa, the UK, Europe or the United States—who are complicit in propping up the lifestyles of these individuals and the regime itself to be exposed.
	Robert Mugabe controls everything: security, the judiciary, the media. We have heard how he uses food as a weapon of political repression. He controls the purse strings. All of his efforts, and those of the people around him, are working towards winning the 2008 election. The only way he can do that is through the combined uses of electoral fraud, terror and, importantly, patronage. Mugabe has handed out farms, as we all know, to senior officials. Recently he has handed out tractors to officials. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about the great number of cars that have recently appeared in Harare; they had been handed out to senior security officials. How and where did the regime procure those cars and tractors? Those who did such deals with it are part of the problem. That might be a national issue; China might be complicit in such deals—I do not know whether that is the case. If business men from Britain or any other country are brokering such deals, they must be exposed and the source of patronage must dry up.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in that I believe that urgent action is necessary as playground economics is being practised—the economy is imploding, there is price-cutting by force, and currency is being printed as if it is confetti. That will bring misery upon misery to the Zimbabwean people, and we must act.

John Bercow: Sadly, many Church figures in Zimbabwe have been bought off. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the next history of Zimbabwe is written—hopefully after the collapse of the current bestial regime—one of the great heroes that will feature in it will be Archbishop Pius Ncube?

Richard Benyon: I absolutely agree. During my entire life, I will probably meet only four or five people like Pius Ncube. He is a truly humble man who has been subjected to the most appalling attacks—we have heard of the latest attack by the regime—and he remains courageous and a model for us all. He has been recognised in some quarters, but I hope that he will be recognised internationally for his extraordinary work. As we applaud him, we must also deplore those who hold prominent Church positions who have played the tune of Mugabe's regime for too long. They deserve as much excoriation as Pius Ncube deserves praise.
	Let me return to the issue of a sporting ban. I was in South Africa in the 1980s. Before I went there, I did not believe that a sporting ban was a particularly effective tool, but when I was there I saw that it was. Mention has been made of banning Zimbabwe from the Olympics and the 2010 World cup. I applaud the Australian Government for simply saying "No", and our Government can do the same. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), when someone wears a national shirt they are part of the political world. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. It is important that there is cross-Government understanding: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or whichever Department makes decisions on who plays in sporting tournaments throughout the world, must recognise that allowing a Zimbabwean team to visit our country or, even worse, us to play cricket or any other sport in Zimbabwe, would amount to an enormous endorsement of the regime, and that that would certainly be how it would be received in that country.
	What we need is good old-fashioned diplomacy. We have given £2.5 billion in bilateral aid to SADC countries. Their economies are being brought down by the actions of the Zimbabwe regime; nearby countries are beginning to feel the impact of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Our taxpayers' hard-earned money is being wasted because those countries will not stand up to Mugabe. I am not saying that aid should be cut; on the contrary, I want aid to be increased, especially to countries in the SADC region. However, we must in return have more leverage, and we should use it to try to put some backbone into some of their leaders.
	Like many Members, I am hugely disappointed by much of Thabo Mbeki's record, such as his attitude to HIV and the fact that he has allowed crime to soar. History will judge harshly his tenure as leader of Africa's strongest country, and the litany of failure will certainly include somewhere very near the beginning of the word "Zimbabwe".
	I hope that this country can take a lead from countries such as Australia, which has taken robust action against the Government of Zimbabwe. We should also applaud people such as Christopher Dell, the courageous US diplomat, and our high commissioner and the whole team in Harare, who do a fantastic job. Christopher Dell's announcement that ZANU-PF officials' family members who were being educated in the US would be removed was a big step forward, and one that we should follow.
	We can also take a lead in many other ways. The Government like to sound new and fresh, and we have announcements to that effect every day. This issue is an opportunity to be fresh and new. We can end the tiptoeing around the subject and the sense of post-colonial guilt syndrome, which my generation feel is in the past and should not be allowed to affect the issue today. The Prime Minister could make a big difference by announcing that he is not going to Lisbon if Robert Mugabe is going, and that we will have a robust and forthright policy on Zimbabwe in the future.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to wind up in this important debate. I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that it is a pity that the debate was not postponed. It is an important debate: we do not get many Foreign Office debates, and this afternoon would have been considerably enhanced by the presence of the Foreign Secretary.
	I have great admiration for the Minister who opened the debate, but she was cast adrift today without an adequate compass or any warning of the dangers that were likely to beset her. It is a pity that she was not able to give the House some of the realistic answers that it expected today. I will come to some of those issues in a moment.
	We had some knowledgeable speeches today from people who have been involved in Zimbabwe for a long time, notably my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a former Foreign Secretary; the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), former Minister for Africa; and the chairman and vice-chairman of the all-party Zimbabwe group, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). They have had long experience of the issue and have bravely stood up for the people of Zimbabwe. The House should be grateful to them for sharing their knowledge of the issue today.
	We have also been fortunate enough to hear from two new Members of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), whose contributions were eye-opening. I shall come to some of the issues raised in a minute.
	I shall not read out a litany of things that are going wrong in Zimbabwe, as many others have done that. Suffice it to say that the situation in that country has reached a very low ebb. If the UN World Food Programme is to be believed, the current year's bad harvest will lead to up to a quarter of the population requiring food aid next year. Already up to a quarter of the population may have fled, at least 2 million of them to South Africa. The intellectual brain drain will be one of the big problems facing Zimbabwe in the future.
	I shall pick out some of the salient points of the excellent speeches we have heard today. I welcome the announcement by the Minister this afternoon when she confirmed Baroness Vadera's announcement in the House of Lords yesterday that an additional £50 million of aid was to be given towards food shortage alleviation and agricultural infrastructure building, and £3.3 million for civil society building. That is very important. If there is any way in which we can help to build civil society in all its aspects, that is to be greatly welcomed.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall that the situation needs internationalising. Anybody who has any influence to bear should be brought in. Of course, ultimately—as I said in a question to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 26 March—it must be an African solution for an African problem, but that does not mean to say that other international players and individual countries cannot add their expertise and help to bring about a solution.
	The hon. Member for Vauxhall was also entirely right to say that we should look to the UN to implement its responsibility to protect. If the international community cannot find mechanisms to enable it to intervene more quickly in places such as Zimbabwe or Sudan's Darfur province, where the suffering and human rights violations are so bad, there is something wrong.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who said that the problem may well get worse before it gets better. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southern, East referred to Operation Slash Prices, which follows numerous other difficulties in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said that it amounts almost to the confiscation of businesses, when the Government take a 51 per cent. share yet still require them to sell goods in the shops below the costs of production. The effect has been that supplies of the essentials of life—wheat, flour, bread and maize—are drying up fast.
	I want to dwell on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. What comes next? It is almost inevitable that Zimbabwe will collapse in the relatively near future, although it is difficult for us to envisage the form that that will take. The best thing might be that Robert Mugabe will announce that is he going to retire and that someone else will take over. That is unlikely, but it would also be an acceptable solution if the presidential elections due to take place in March next are free and fair and another person is voted in. However, further action by the people of Zimbabwe might be presaged if they are not free and fair, and that would leave a difficult situation that we would have to resolve.
	The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), will respond to the debate, and he will have to answer the many penetrating questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). I hope that he will also pay some attention to the thinking that the international community has devoted to a post-Mugabe regime. That is critically important.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South raised a number of issues worth considering. One thing that is going wrong is Mugabe's violation of the rule of law, which has all sorts of guises. For example, a change in the law means that Mugabe can manipulate Parliament to elect a president if anything happens to him. In addition, rules have been introduced that restrict people's ability to assemble and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, new laws allow all sorts of private communications to be monitored.
	We need to make sure that the rule of law operates properly in Zimbabwe. We know, for example, that solicitors representing people in jail are themselves being jailed. The rule of law is being brought rapidly into disrepute, and that is one of the first problems that will have to be dealt with.
	As I have noted already, Zimbabwe will need a new constitution, and a new and independent electoral commission. I also hope that the electoral register will be properly verified before next year's presidential elections, as it would be entirely unacceptable if we were to find that it had been gerrymandered, with the result that members of one party only were encouraged to vote. In that connection, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say whether he has given thought to getting the international community to bring pressure to bear so that the 3 million or so Zimbabweans in Britain, South Africa and elsewhere are allowed to vote.
	The security and financial sectors will also need to be reformed. Increasingly, members of the police and armed forces are not being paid, and that is because the Zimbabwean Government are simply running out of money. Officially, inflation is running at 4,000 per cent., but unofficial figures put it very much higher.
	We heard a lot in the debate about the governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, but the bank has no foreign reserves apart from what it gets when it seizes the hard currency gained after a company manages to complete some trade. It is essential that we have economic reform, a currency reserve fund, a contingency fund and a proper civil service that is able to administer money so that proper civil servants, members of the armed forces and the police are paid, and can do their jobs.
	There will need to be emergency food aid. That is already under way. Some of my colleagues—this happened in a debate yesterday—criticise us for giving food aid because they say that it props up the Government of Zimbabwe. I say that we have to find a way of giving the starving people of Zimbabwe food aid without propping up the Government of Zimbabwe. Not to give them food aid would be unacceptable. We will need to find ways of making sure that everybody has enough food, and of ensuring that people have access to a proper health service and a proper education service, and are housed. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about Operation Murambatsvina—the so-called Clear the Filth operation—that meant that 700,000 people were driven out of their houses in Zimbabwe. When the international community tried to provide tents for them because they were homeless, the tents were seized by the armed forces. That is the extent of Robert Mugabe's regime.
	We will need to find a solution not only to the internally displaced people I have just referred to, and many others, but to the refugees, who are mostly, but not exclusively, in South Africa. The sad fact about Zimbabwe at the moment, and perhaps one of the factors that will be quickest in bringing about collapse, is that the most able people are leaving the country. They are the very people—the brightest, the most intellectual people—who need to be retained in the country to run a realistic future.
	Somehow, we will also need to come up with a solution to the land redistribution problem—not that that need be a problem in itself, but what needs to happen fairly rapidly is that somehow the farms need to be put back into proper production so that Zimbabwe can at last begin to feed itself and, even more importantly, in the medium term, not only feed itself, but start exporting food. That is one of the main parts of its economy and would mean that it could begin to earn hard currency again.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to something very interesting that I do not think has been addressed before: truth and reconciliation. Zimbabwe will need to have a truth and reconciliation commission similar to the one that we had under the auspices of the archbishop in South Africa. That will mean that those who have not committed gross crimes against humanity can be brought back into the fold and pardoned—because we will desperately need to work with them. The international community and the people of Zimbabwe will need to work with people we would not necessarily want to talk to. A truth and reconciliation commission would be one way of doing that.
	There will need to be a considerable package of assistance. I hope that the Minister who is summing up tonight can tell us not only what thinking there has been on how the country can be rebuilt, but who is going to provide that monetary assistance. There needs to be a mechanism, because when the collapse comes, it might come quite quickly. We need to be prepared. We must not be left floundering around for weeks or months trying to come up with a package. The work needs to be done now.
	I want to turn to the elections next year. Colleagues have mentioned this issue. There are some encouraging signs that the Opposition party, the MDC, is beginning to come together. I have good reason to believe that, in those presidential elections, Morgan Tsvangirai will be the only candidate. Having one Opposition candidate for the president and one in each electoral district will provide a much more powerful opposition and it will be much less confusing for the people of Zimbabwe. I hope that that happens.
	We need to look at international re-engagement and at how the whole effort involving the South Africans and SADC is going to work. One of the most important suggestions that has come out of the Thabo Mbeki mediation process was that we should have a proper UN rapporteur to give added weight and emphasis to the situation. I hope that that can come about. At the same time, we need to send proper signals from the international community to the Mugabe regime.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, a former Foreign Secretary, is exactly right to say that if the European Union aspires to have a common foreign policy that means anything at all, it needs a common foreign policy on Zimbabwe. That means that we must adopt a common position on who is subject to the travel ban and on the sanctions and assets freezes that are to be applied. While I am on that subject, might add that the assets freeze is pretty weak in this country. I understand that it covers only about 400 bank accounts containing £350,000. Surely the Government could do more in that respect.
	We need to ensure that Zimbabwe features on the agenda at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Although Zimbabwe has been suspended from the Commonwealth, it was formerly a member and many of its neighbours are members. The Commonwealth could be better used, so the matter should be on the CHOGM agenda.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that we need to send out the right signals about sporting events. If a national team is to play in Zimbabwe, it is a national responsibility to give those teams a steer. It is no good saying that it is up to the UK cricketing body to make a decision, especially if it is going to lose out financially. It is up to the Government to say quite clearly, "You should not be going to Zimbabwe. If you lose out financially, we will compensate you." The Government's position is anomalous. There was a sporting ban on South Africa, so why should there not be a ban on Zimbabwe, given the similarly dreadful situation there?
	We have heard many interesting speeches made by hon. Members with experience. Suffice it to say that the situation is Zimbabwe is quite unacceptable. Zimbabwe is reckoned by some to be the fourth most likely nation in the world to fail. I agree that there will be a form of collapse in Zimbabwe in the near future. I just hope that, when it comes, the Government and the international community will be a little better prepared for it than the Government were for today's debate.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in responding to this robust debate on the future of Zimbabwe. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), set out the Government's profound concern about the situation in Zimbabwe and the action that we have consistently taken to highlight our concerns and work for a better future for the people of Zimbabwe.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) led for the official Opposition. He echoed the Government's profound concern and asked a series of questions about our policy. I will come to those questions in due course.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) followed the hon. Gentleman. For many years, she has consistently focused attention, both inside and outside the House, on the plight of the people of Zimbabwe. I acknowledge and pay tribute to her long-standing interest in the issue.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), who led for the Liberal Democrats, has considerable development expertise due to his work on the International Development Committee. He, too, asked a series of questions, and I shall address them during my speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) brought their considerable experience of service in the Foreign Office to the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a specific point that was echoed by Conservative Members, especially, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall: attendance at the EU-AU summit. I will address that issue shortly.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has shown a consistent interest in Zimbabwe throughout his time in the House. He highlighted the fact that he made his first visit to Zimbabwe in 1979. I cannot hope to compete with his interest in Zimbabwe or his number of visits to that country over such a long time. However, I remember the sense of optimism that he described about the future of Zimbabwe that followed the Lancaster House agreement. I share the profound frustration and disappointment felt about the fact that that optimism has not resulted in the progress that all Members wanted for Zimbabwe. He was right to say that aid alone cannot solve Zimbabwe's problems. Aid has a place in helping to address those problems, but without improvements to governance, we cannot tackle the terrible plight of the Zimbabwean people.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield was followed by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who highlighted the views of the one quarter of Zimbabweans who have left the country because of the terrible economic and political situation there, some of whom now live in his constituency. He was followed by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who highlighted the considerable courage of many people who are not members of Robert Mugabe's circle, including those in the Church, in civil society, and in political parties other than ZANU-PF. Despite considerable repression, they have continued to highlight the plight of Zimbabwe's people. I join him, as I am sure the whole House does, in paying tribute to their courage.
	Lastly, the hon. Member for Cotswold spoke. He joined other Members in describing the appalling governance that is at the root of the terrible suffering of the Zimbabwean people. There are disastrous economic policies on the one hand and significant appalling human rights abuses on the other. The hon. Member for Macclesfield and others referred to the fact that as the country has continued towards collapse, and as the leadership of Zimbabwe fears for its future, new acts of repression and intimidation, such as arbitrary arrest, beatings and torture, have been carried out. Nobody in Zimbabwean society has escaped that trauma. Journalists, business men, lawyers and trade unionists have all been victims, as hon. Members have described. I join the House in its collective condemnation of the terrible record of Robert Mugabe's Government, who are responsible for the situation in Zimbabwe.
	In the very short time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in post, he has already spoken to President Mbeki about the Southern African Development Community initiative, and has continued to highlight the British Government's concern about the situation in Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his opposite number in South Africa, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had a series of discussions with a range of Governments, both within the European Union—they have spoken to their German, French and Portuguese opposite numbers—and within the SADC region. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise the British Government's profound concerns about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels next week. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we have taken the lead in keeping Zimbabwe on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council, and we continue to ensure that the Security Council remains focused on the issue.
	I shall try to answer the questions that hon. Members asked. Let me start with some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. He rightly highlighted Robert Mugabe's continuing attempt to present the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe as a continuation of the anti-colonial struggle, and rightly said that it is nothing of the sort. Contrary to the Zimbabwean Government's propaganda, we have not imposed economic sanctions on the country and its people. Indeed, we have made our support for the people of Zimbabwe clear through the substantial humanitarian assistance that we continue to provide to ameliorate the dreadful impact of failed economic policies.
	Our approach to Zimbabwe has been to try to support, and not punish, Zimbabwe's people. We provide direct assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Zimbabwe. Our aid is helping to form part of a response to the Zimbabwean food crisis. This year, more than half the population is likely to need food aid, as Conservative Members and others have said. We will continue to work with the World Food Programme, which, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, has just issued a further appeal for the coming months, which we are considering, and to which we will respond shortly. The international community has so far managed to keep malnutrition below emergency levels. I make no higher claim for the humanitarian support that we have been able to provide.
	Through our protracted relief programme, we have also reached some 2 million people in the most drought-prone areas of Zimbabwe with seeds, tools, livestock and fertiliser to help them build basic rural livelihoods. The programme has also helped to provide care for the most chronically ill in their homes. We have, for example, supplied some 600,000 people with safe drinking water. As was mentioned, my noble Friend Baroness Vadera announced yesterday that we have just committed some £50 million for a second five-year period for the programme.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall expressed concern about the politicisation of food aid in Zimbabwe. She is right to highlight the problem, which we strongly condemn. It is the Government of Zimbabwe who have politicised food aid. The food that they have purchased is distributed predominantly to their supporters. Donor-funded aid—aid provided as a result of British money—is channelled through non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, and there is rigorous monitoring to ensure that it goes to people who need it, not to those who Robert Mugabe's Government would like to receive it.

Kate Hoey: I accept the premise of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, although the NGOs may take responsibility up to a point, there is no doubt that out in the rural areas, way beyond the cameras, the journalists and the media, food aid, which has been paid for by my constituents, is being distributed on a political basis according to whether or not people are supporters of ZANU-PF.

Gareth Thomas: As I have said to my hon. Friend, there is no question but that the politicisation of food aid is taking place. Given the monitoring that we ensure takes place and for which others, including those who work for the World Food Programme, take responsibility, the food aid that is distributed by donors goes to the intended beneficiaries. There is no doubt that the food that is purchased by the Government of Zimbabwe goes, sadly, not necessarily to those who need it, but overwhelmingly to the supporters of that Government.
	I take my hon. Friend's point in this respect: we cannot afford to relax about the way in which food aid is distributed. We need to continue to monitor to ensure that food aid is consistently distributed to those who should benefit from it. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members have evidence of any abuse of donor-funded aid, we want to hear about it immediately.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about forced displacement and what the UK Government are doing to support victims of forced displacement. We have provided the International Organisation for Migration with some £5 million for food, shelter, blankets and other lifesaving equipment, to try to ameliorate the impact of forced displacement. We provide humanitarian assistance more generally too to those who have been deported, and we try to offer some protection from abuse to those terribly vulnerable groups who are suffering as a result of forced displacement—unaccompanied children, for example
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the safety of British nationals in Zimbabwe. He knows, as do other hon. Members, that we take extremely seriously our duty of care for British nationals across the whole of Zimbabwe. There is a full consular service in Harare and we are making efforts to ensure that all British nationals, including those who are elderly and vulnerable—another point that was made—are aware of the assistance that we can provide through the embassy, and that which is available from other relevant welfare organisations. He also asked whether there are consular contingency plans. Of course, we do have such plans, as we do for all countries should a situation change. I am sure that he will understand if I do not go into more detail at this time.
	Let me come to the point raised by all Conservative Members and two of my hon. Friends—the concern about the EU-Africa summit that will, I hope, take place in Lisbon later this year. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea alluded to the huge governance challenges that there are in Africa. Others referred to the HIV/AIDS crisis, the lack of water, and the fact that too many of Africa's children do not have access to primary school education. Those are issues that the EU should discuss with African Governments, and many bilateral discussions are indeed taking place, but they should also take place at a regional—EU-Africa—level. The last thing that we would want to happen is for those concerns about the broader needs of African nations to be overshadowed by the attendance of Robert Mugabe.
	I am aware of the report in  The Sunday Times that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea mentioned. He will perhaps understand why I am not going to speculate on how that report appeared. However, I can re-emphasise that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said in her opening remarks, no invitations to the EU-Africa summit have been issued. We are some way away from the point at which that might happen, and the agenda is not yet settled. The hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out that Robert Mugabe did not attend the summit in France, which is a helpful precedent. I assure hon. Members who have strongly articulated their concerns that there will be plenty of opportunities for the House to consider the question of invitations, as well as the agenda.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect, the Government need to be clear on the negotiating stance that they are going to take with regard to Robert Mugabe's attendance at the summit. Will the Minister give a clear answer on that matter, if not now, by way of written answer before the House goes into recess, which means that there will not be much chance to discuss it?

Gareth Thomas: As I said, I recognise and understand the profound concern about what might and might not happen in relation to the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon. Again, I say gently to the House that we are not at the point where invitations have been issued, and there will be many opportunities to debate what will or will not happen. I will of course bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and others, the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House.
	Several hon. Members referred to the governor of the Reserve Bank. Let me make it clear that I believe that he should be on the EU's targeted measures list. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, he has not sought, thus far, to come to the UK, and he would not be welcome if he did.
	Hon. Members asked what further steps we are taking to investigate and seize the assets of those on the visa ban list. More than 130 individuals are on that list, although it was suggested that there are only 120. We are looking into the activities of a whole series of businesses to see whether they are in any way, accidentally or deliberately, helping members of the ZANU-PF elite to get round the ban on assets. Alongside the investigations that are already under way, we are always keen to receive any information that hon. Members might have to help us to seize the assets of those on the list.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ILLEGAL RAVES (SOUTH-WEST NORFOLK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

Christopher Fraser: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise concern about unlicensed music events known as raves, which are causing huge distress, damage and expense in my constituency. Throughout the summer months they have become a regular feature, and in the past few weeks, residents in Marham, Narborough and Cockley Cley have suffered. Unlicensed music events are hugely profitable to the organisers, and they have nothing to do with the altruistic values of young people. They are a product of a get-rich quick formula that tramples on the rural economy. Costs are minimised, no tax is paid, and there is no regard for anyone or anything but the profit made.
	There are plenty of first-class licensed music venues in Norfolk, where events can be held legitimately and safely. I spent a memorable evening last summer with my family at a concert in Thetford forest. The event was extremely well managed by the Forestry Commission; excellent arrangements for public safety, public facilities, car parking, sound and lighting showed just how such events can be staged legitimately. Why should local people put up with unlicensed events on their land if all they amount to is a money-raising exercise for the organisers? Lawbreakers are getting rich at the expense of others, which in itself is criminal, in my opinion.
	Constituents tell me that they were terrified by the experience of having up to 1,000 people on their property or near their home, and said how disgusted they were by the litter, human waste and excrement and drug paraphernalia, including needles, left behind after a rave. The Government have a duty to protect the law-abiding majority from the antisocial behaviour of others, and while I am conscious of the rules relating to Adjournment debates, I would like to devote a large proportion of this evening's debate to the shortcomings of the current legislation, and ask the Minister to consider the situation. I do not seek draconian powers that would affect private parties. I know that recent changes have made it easier to disrupt illegal raves, but the reality is that current regulations are not effective deterrents and do not achieve what I believe the objectives of the police should be.
	Legislation is geared towards the termination of a rave. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows the police to instruct rave-goers to leave an event. However, unless substantial numbers of police officers are quickly mustered, without notice, in rural areas at night, it is extremely difficult and potentially dangerous to try to end a party already in full swing. One journalist in the national press described the effects of an attempt by police to break up an illegal rave last year:
	"Two hundred riot police from five counties dispersed the 1,000 party goers. During the clashes a police car was set on fire and nine officers were wounded, with injuries to police including a suspected broken collarbone and a severed finger. At least two revellers were also injured. Thirty people were arrested and released on bail."
	Given this risk, police have to judge whether intervention is realistic. In many cases, they can do little more than monitor the event, and the organisers of the raves rely on that fact. They know that they will get away with it; that is why it is such good business for them. It appears that the organisers of the Marham event arranged for motorcyclists to help move their mobile equipment en route to the event. They also had heavies present, wearing hoods and balaclavas. The police attended but soon withdrew when it became clear that they could only monitor what was going on.
	It often seems to the public that the police are not doing all they can to prevent a rave, but the site of the party is often revealed only a few hours or minutes beforehand, specifically so that the police have no time to act. That means that the law relating to the prohibition of "trespass assemblies", which requires an application to the district council for a prohibition order, cannot be applied. The police have the power to direct people away from a rave in a 5 mile radius of the site, but in the maze of country lanes that criss-cross Norfolk, that would demand huge numbers of police and is not workable.
	In practice, the principal offence is:
	"Failing to leave the site of a rave as soon as reasonable, once directed to do so."
	Again, Norfolk constabulary simply does not have the resources to round up and arrest hundreds of young people who have no intention of leaving. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to make attendance at a rave an offence? What about an offence of organising, or being involved in organising, an event?
	I am also concerned that the law focuses on single events. It does not pave the way to prosecuting persistent organisers or serial rave-goers. Power to confiscate equipment relates only to the failure to leave today's event, and is not retrospective. Norfolk constabulary told me:
	"Because the legislation is aimed at stopping an event, interrogating and possibly arresting people leaving a site at the end of a rave is not within the spirit of the law."
	Does the Minister agree that the ability to gather vital intelligence about regular rave-goers, the identity of the organisers or plans for future raves would be hugely helpful to the policing process? Would not it give the police a fighting chance of making progress?
	What about the impact of such events on local people? Current legislation suggests that the only disruption caused by a rave comes from music which,
	"by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality."
	Although I do not underestimate the disturbance that continuous loud music causes, the illegal gatherings have other, equally distressing effects on local communities.
	The presence of hundreds of people and vehicles in rural areas can cause terrible damage to farmers' fields, livestock and crops. We must not forget that when those are damaged, that has an impact on the livelihood of farmers going about their legitimate businesses. A farmer in my constituency recently wrote to me, saying:
	"to protect my pigs from party-goers, I had to be present on my field from 3.30 in the morning until 8 o'clock the following night. On one occasion when I left for 5 minutes, I returned to find 4 men chasing them around their pens."
	Is it any wonder that he was devastated to discover that the law appears to be on the side of the party-goers rather than on his side?
	I have been advised that section 63 powers cannot be enforced in remote rural locations where there are only a few local residents. The law requires
	"serious distress to be caused to the inhabitants of the locality."
	That seems unfair—one law for urban areas and another for the countryside. It also suggests that a rave in the countryside is acceptable because only a few people suffer. Like my constituents, I take exception to that principle.
	As the excellent Norfolk Farmwatch organisation told me, a small number of residents in a remote location can feel even more vulnerable than those in a village or town. I know of one elderly couple in my constituency who barricaded themselves into their isolated home for more than 12 hours while 1,000 revellers passed within feet of their front door. Two weeks later that couple were still trying to clear up the debris left in their barn. In a civilised society, how can the law ignore such people?
	The existing criteria also fail to take account of the significant distress or damage caused to wildlife and plant life. Under section 28P(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to "intentionally or recklessly" destroy or damage any of the features of a site of special scientific interest, but only if the person knows that they are within an SSSI. Most rave-goers will be entirely ignorant of the existence of an SSSI and will therefore not be liable for any damage that they cause, no matter how serious. Why should ignorance be a factor? Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales both have powers to make byelaws under section 28R of the 1981 Act for
	"the protection of a site of special scientific interest."
	As far as I can determine, the power is rarely if ever used to control the harm caused by ravers. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
	It is true that a number of rave organisers have been successfully prosecuted, but there is concern about the leniency of their sentences, which give those making huge profits little incentive to give up their business. There is an urgent need to review maximum sentences and even to elevate such offences from the magistrates court to the Crown court. Those found guilty face three months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500. A Crown court could impose sentences twice as severe. Such a move would reflect the seriousness with which the Government view such crimes. Should the fines imposed take into account the cost of clearing up the site? Yes, they should. Many local landowners have spent thousands of pounds clearing their land with no help from anyone—yet another illustration of the imbalance that the rural economy has to fight.
	The final issue that I want to raise is licensing. Norfolk constabulary and our local councils have told me that the Licensing Act 2003 could unintentionally facilitate raves, because it is possible to submit a temporary event notice application. The police then have just 48 hours to object, but objections can be lodged on only crime and disorder grounds. There is a view that the prospect of excessive noise might not be sufficient for the council to refuse the application. The 48-hour limit could be a particular problem if the application is delivered to a rural, largely unmanned police station on a Friday afternoon. If a licence application is granted, the benefit to the police is that it would bear the name of the organiser, against whom charges could be brought for noise and other disturbance. That in itself is reason enough for rave organisers to continue to hold unlicensed illegal events.
	In conclusion, the problem of raves continues, despite recent changes in legislation. Far from the perception that the police are not using existing powers, it seems that they are in part prevented from acting because of legislative constraints. We will dissuade people from holding and supporting illegal gatherings only if the Government show that they are serious in their intent and provide an effective deterrent. I have known the Minister as a fellow parliamentarian for some time, and he has been honourable and fair in all my dealings with him. I hope that he will give an assurance to local landowners and others in constituencies such as mine throughout the country that they have a right to protection against these illegal events.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) on securing this Adjournment debate on illegal raves. It is an extremely important matter, and he made his points in his usual dignified, concise and intelligent way. His constituents will know that he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions, and he is standing up for them by raising what is an important issue not only for the people of Norfolk but for those in other parts of the country. The debate relates specifically to his constituency, but it will have a broader impact as well. I congratulate him on his work on trying to secure a benefit for his constituents that could affect other citizens of this country. I hope that I shall answer all his questions in the course of my speech, but if I appear to be reaching the end without having done so, he may wish to intervene.
	I am aware of rave events occurring in the hon. Gentleman's constituency this year, and I share his anxiety that they should not become an opportunity or an excuse for disorder, antisocial activity, criminality or behaviour that intimidates and alienates members of local communities. Nor should those events facilitate illicit drug cultures, with which they have also been associated. I also realise that the effects of raves are not limited to the duration of the event itself. These gatherings can cause traffic congestion to small and wholly unsuited roads, and also lead to the depositing of huge quantities of rubbish, ruining local residents' surroundings.
	I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office is committed to tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour, whatever form it takes. I welcome this opportunity to discuss raves, to outline the relevant legislation, and to update Members on the concerted efforts being made by the police to tackle the problem. We regard it as an extremely important matter that deserves our full attention.
	I shall begin with the relevant legislation. The police are equipped with a number of powers specifically to deal with raves in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Following close liaison with the police on the changing nature of raves, that legislation was further updated in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The police have powers to direct 20 or more rave-goers to leave an event. They also have pre-emptive powers to direct two or more persons preparing for a rave to leave land. It is a criminal offence to ignore those directions. The police also have powers to seize vehicles or sound equipment, and to direct people away from a gathering that has already been prohibited.
	The hon. Gentleman and his constituents should also be aware that those successfully convicted may receive three month's imprisonment or a fine. We always keep those matters under review, and I take his point about the need for sentencing to send out a message of deterrence to people who choose to ignore the law. Regarding enforcement, in the years from 2001 to 2005, 15 persons were prosecuted for failing to leave land when directed. Five of them were convicted. Also, three persons were prosecuted for failing to comply with a direction not to proceed in the direction of a rave, and one person was convicted. I repeat that we want the police to deal robustly with those events and, indeed, that we want the courts to support the police in their work.
	It is not just legislation specific to raves that can be used by the police. I mentioned at the outset that unlawful raves have been associated with low-level public disorder, unacceptable nuisance and the possession of unlawful drugs. Members will know that a whole raft of legislation is in place and available to the police to deal with those offences—for example, sections 1 to 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and even antisocial behaviour orders. Clearly, a range of other legislation in respect of public order offences, drugs misuse and so forth is available to the police for dealing with illegal raves.
	Authorities in Norfolk served a temporary antisocial behaviour order on a 62-year-old man accused of masterminding a series of illegal raves in the county. The ASBO prevents him from organising or participating in any further events in the area. As the hon. Gentleman will know, should he breach that ASBO, it would amount to a criminal offence in itself. In Thames Valley, the police have also put resources into tackling illegal raves through ASBOs, resulting in orders being placed on a couple of rave organisers, with more cases pending. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that those actions have been successful in preventing raves in the Thames Valley area.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of mess or rubbish left behind at rave sites. As he will know, a series of Acts of Parliament can be used to tackle the problem. For example, leaving litter is an offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 give authorities the power to deal with fly-tipping and littering of the sort that he mentioned. More recently, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 provides considerably increased powers and levels of punishment in respect of those offences.

Christopher Fraser: May I make one observation? I accept and understand the laws that the Minister refers to, but they may well be more effective in an urban environment where it is easier to maintain surveillance on people. In very rural areas, where the fields are usually without light, it is much more difficult to catch people in the act of committing such offences.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I accept, and some of my later remarks may help to address it.
	The use of legislation in an operational context is entirely a matter for the strategic direction that a chief officer provides for his or her force. Whether it be in an urban or rural area, this is an extremely important issue, which this debate helps to reinforce. Tactics on how individual raves should be policed are at the discretion of the officers deployed at the scene of an event and involve difficult judgments on minimising disturbance to local communities and residents, preventing any escalation in public disorder and ensuring the safety of police officers and rave-goers.
	Although the detail of operational decisions is not necessarily a matter for ministerial interference, Ministers are keen—and I am certainly keen—to see best practice in policing raves disseminated across the police service, including in Norfolk. In that regard, a workshop on policing raves was hosted in June by the recently established National Policing Improvement Agency, which was attended by 100-plus police officers from around the country, including officers from Norfolk. I understand that police tactics, the sharing of intelligence, partnership working, national guidance and current legislation—issues also raised by the hon. Gentleman this evening—were all discussed, and that the feedback from the workshop will be collated and used both to promote short-term steps that forces can take further to improve their response to raves, and to inform longer-term strategic work, including whether any changes to legislation are required.
	That should be of help to the hon. Gentleman, because, clearly, such a workshop will consider issues such as the policing of raves in remote rural areas, and the sharing of good practice between police forces, especially when one force has found a particular way of operating to be effective. I take his point that there is a big difference between policing a rave in a remote part of Norfolk and policing a rave in a field on the edge of London, for example.
	The sub-group on raves, which was set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers working group on public order, provides an appropriate forum to take work forward, and further underlines police commitment to work nationally to improve policing of illegal raves. ACPO has recognised that the problem is growing, and the sub-group is building on work done in an earlier forum. I shall ask my officials to read the record of the debate, and to send the relevant points made by the hon. Gentleman to that working group for consideration. That might benefit him and perhaps other Members across the country who have had such problems. He asked, if I remember rightly, whether it would be possible for attendance at a rave, or organising a rave, to be made a criminal office. The group will be able to consider whether that is appropriate, whether other legislation covers that, or whether something could be done.
	On the importance of partnership working, the hon. Gentleman might also like to know that the Local Government Association announced last month a five-point plan for councils to combat illegal raves. That included work with police and other agencies, intelligence gathering, which is crucial, and asking landowners to be vigilant. He might want to ask his local authority whether it is aware of that, and what steps if any it is taking in that respect.
	Clearly, the hon. Gentleman called the debate because of concerns in his constituency of South-West Norfolk. I therefore want to conclude by providing him with some reassurance that Norfolk police are taking the matter seriously. They have an analyst working part-time monitoring rave websites, and the force holds a database of music rigs that are being used to organise raves in the Norfolk area. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, help to gather intelligence is critical if we are to move forward in this area. We are therefore required to look at rave websites, magazines and other types of media in which information about where an illegal rave might take place is shared. I congratulate Norfolk police on their use of an analyst, as that can help us to deal with the problem. Officers from Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk, together with other agencies, gathered information during this year's Easter and May bank holidays to prevent illegal raves from taking place.
	I hope that those remarks give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, particularly my suggestion that the points that he has made should be referred to the ACPO sub-group, and that it should be asked to look at the legislation again, consider whether improvements can be made, share good practice and do something to prevent the appalling things that his constituents have had to suffer at the hands of people whose only goal is to make a good deal of money. Such a situation is not acceptable, and we need to work together to try to do even more about it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.